MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-Second Session
April 3, 2003
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 4:02 p.m., on Thursday, April 3, 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.
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.
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:
Assemblyman Don Gustavson, District No. 30, Washoe County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Douglas Seastrand, Chair, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada
Jill Derby, Ph.D., Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association
David Schumann, Independent American Party
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters
Nick Matteis, Representing City of Sparks
Stephanie Garcia-Vause, City of Henderson
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Good afternoon. [Roll called] We’re going to take the bills somewhat out of order, but now that we have a quorum, I was thinking we might at least take up the work session, which is fairly simple. Then we will go to A.B. 526, then A.J.R. 11, and then I told Mr. Gustavson that when he was able to get out of his committee, we would stop my testimony and let him go ahead and do his. That way, the regents can get back.
Work session is in your folder (Exhibit C). We’re going to go to work session first. We will consider A.B. 344.
This was Speaker Perkins’ bill, and what it was dealing with is our language. Our law never recognized what the process would be in case someone happened to pass away in office, or had a crash, or some other unfortunate incident. The language before you was presented with amendments from Brian, his intern. Michelle [Van Geel], do you want to walk through that with us?
Assembly Bill 344: Provides for special election to fill vacancy in office of Representative in Congress. (BDR 24-648)
Michelle Van Geel, Research Division, Committee Policy Analyst:
[Introduced herself] Assembly Bill 344 was heard in Committee on March 27. It provides for a special election to fill a vacancy in offices for representative in Congress. Under Tab A, you’ll find the proposed mock-up to the entire bill that Brian presented to the Committee (Exhibit C). The first thing would be to agree to that amendment as a whole. There were three other small amendments that were discussed by the Committee during that hearing.
The first would be on page 2, Section 6, line 8. Add the phrase, “as soon as practicable” after the word “conducted.” You would also make that same change on page 2, Section 6, line 11.
The last one, and this is for discussion with the Committee, you could either amend page 2, Section 7, line 27, by adding the phrase “which can comply with mailing out of state ballots.” Alan Glover, the Carson City Clerk-Recorder, had some concerns with that. He just wanted to make sure that the clerks have enough time, that there’s a short time frame for when those people can file so they have enough time to get the ballots printed and mailed. There was also discussion that the language in there referring to NRS 293.204 that allows the Secretary of State’s Office to adopt those regulations. It’s up to you whether you want the Secretary of State to handle that in regs, or whether you want to put that language in the bill.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
What’s the feeling of the Committee? I think Mr. Anderson actually raised the question about the “as soon as practicable.” I think they’ve reworded that to make a little bit better sense. Should we go ahead and say, “which can comply with mailing out state ballots with the intent?” I’ll take a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 344 WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS ON THE SECOND PAGE UNDER TAB “A” OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Weber and Ms. McClain were not present for the vote.)
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
The second one we will take up is A.J.R. 4, the Taiwanese resolution. There are no suggested amendments.
Assembly Joint Resolution 4: Urges President of United States and Congress to support free trade agreement between Republic of China on Taiwan and United States. (BDR R-1213)
Michelle Van Geel:
Assembly Joint Resolution 4 was heard by our Committee on March 11. It was just the resolution supporting the free trade agreement with Taiwan.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Are there any questions or discussion? [There were none.]
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 4.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN SECONDED THE VOTE.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I think that so far free trade agreements have been terrible for working people. I’m opposed to fast track, and so I will oppose this.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It’s quite understood.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I’m of the same mind, so I will be in opposition to this also. Thank you.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE AND ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY VOTING NO. (Ms. Weber and Ms. McClain were not present for the vote.)
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I’m going to turn this over to the Vice Chairman.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
We’re going to open the hearing on A.B. 526. This is an Elections, Procedures, and Ethics Committee bill.
Assembly Bill 526: Makes various changes concerning contests of general elections for offices of Assemblyman and Senator. (BDR 24-1289)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, District No. 9, Clark County:
[Introduced herself] The first bill before you that you’re taking up is A.B. 526. This was a recommendation that I requested on behalf of the Committee after hearing an election contest, just for some additional changes that had been suggested at that time.
I have passed out a suggested amendment (Exhibit D) to make sure that there is a time certain, but we wanted to extend the period of time for individuals that issue a contest to be able to still submit some information. The amendment then puts a cap at December 15. With the holidays and everything else, that at least allows some additional time from the original two weeks that was in there. In addition to that, it does state that all documents the contestant intends to submit for the actual hearing have to be provided by that date, and any witness list has to be provided by that date.
[Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, continued] Subsection 3 makes it very clear, because one individual challenged whether or not depositions could be taken. We took the language from our rules and actually put it into the statute, which is that depositions may be taken by either party.
Finally, if you look down at the very bottom of the page, I think the verbiage is just a little bit wrong, so I might suggest, and it’s not on your amendment, but it just didn’t read like a sentence to me. On line 38, I would insert, “and pay the candidate who received the highest number of votes for the office.” I think that makes a little bit better sense. I’ll try to answer any questions.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
I have a question, and I know I asked you beforehand regarding the amendment. I like the legislation, but I still have concerns about disclosure between the two sides. You can present information and amend your contest up until the 15th, which I think is good. Then what happens between the 15th and the start of the Legislature if by the 15th you still feel strong about your contest, is you’re still going to go out and try to find more information. Should we be forcing the contestant to disclose what they find to the elected party, and should we force the elected party to disclose? I think a lot of contests could be avoided in the Legislature if there is some mechanism that requires full disclosure of information as you gain access to it.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Not being a legal person, I’m not sure how that would work. I understand what you’re saying. It’s so both parties exchange information. Currently, by law, the information solely goes to the Secretary of State’s Office. I believe he or she maintains it. I would like to get a legal opinion on whether that’s standard practice or something that is kosher, for lack of a better term. I don’t know what you would accomplish by both sides presenting their case and then turning around and presenting the exact same case before the Legislature. Unless the idea was that someone could say, “That’s not accurate at all.” I’m not quite sure what the benefit of that might be. Maybe there might be more discussion on that.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any more questions for Ms. Giunchigliani?
Assemblyman Anderson:
I thought the purpose of the Secretary of State was to merely verify that the documents be submitted as a recipient rather than where the Legislature itself determines the outcome of the legitimacy of the election. Therefore, the Legislature itself acts as both judge and jury—
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct.
Assemblyman Anderson:
—for the qualifications of our own members.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct.
Assemblyman Anderson:
If we’re to apply a legal process to it, they have to exchange all the information as they develop it. This would be proper for the Secretary of State to have that, but right up to the time. If your cutoff date was December 15, then during that month and a half you could indeed find several important pieces of information that would make the determination and the necessity of the continuation of the challenge to be in doubt. If they were not going to pursue their challenge, you’d like it out of the way as quickly as possible, would you not?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes. That’s the intent. Let me try to restate. This does not change that format. Everything is still filed with the Secretary of State, but we gave an extension, because part of the complaint was that was too short a time period. There still needs to be a specific time when there’s a cutoff period. I think what Mr. Conklin is suggesting is that both parties then exchange whatever information they’ve gathered. I’m not sure that doesn’t go against who’s making a decision, whichever house it might be in, about the validity of the contest. Is it just the contestee and the contested individual? I don’t think that’s the role, and I’m not sure what the exchange of information would accomplish. That was my question back to him. I don’t know, because I’m not a legal person.
Assemblyman Anderson:
If I were contesting the election, and I had filed my paperwork with the Secretary of State and through the election office in the timely fashion that is suggested here in the bill, because I believe there was some impropriety in the election, then, in the nature of the exchanged information, discovered that I was incorrect, would I not want to save myself further embarrassment by dropping the claim as quickly as possible and backing away from it? The problem is that that’s usually made public. When you back away, that’s usually not made public.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think we’d have to take Mr. Conklin’s suggestion to Legal and have them take a look at the pros and cons of moving beyond that, because it almost sounds like it’s a secondary hearing prior to actually being a hearing. You want the opportunity for a party to withdraw, up until a certain point. I don’t think this changes that part of it. I do believe that the issue was to have given a little bit more extended time period for the individual who’s challenging to be able to gather information. This does that. I’m not quite sure, on the other end, what the point would be of exchanging information or not exchanging information. I know in my contest you didn’t have access to it until the actual presentation of the hearing. If your thought is that the person that contested saw what you’d gathered in anticipation of what they might have gathered, even though you haven’t seen theirs until there was some magic crossing period, would that cause them to withdraw. I think that’s what you’re trying to get to.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Yes, I think that’s what I’m trying to get to. I think Mr. Anderson brings up a good point, too. There’s an opportunity when you share information to recognize between the parties, because it’s an elective of the contestant to contest an election, to say, “Maybe this wasn’t the best contest. I see that there’s another side to this, and chances are, that’s really what transpired.” It’s an opportunity for that person to see all of the facts, not just the ones that support their case, and decide if they truly want to go forward with it. I think it can be cumbersome. There’s a certain amount of money that’s being spent the longer anything goes on, and also some potential embarrassment.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think we’ll have to get a legal opinion on how that would work, because I don’t know, and I don’t want to conflict with the house being the one that makes the determination, because that is our role. I would not want to infringe on that part of it.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
That’s a point very well taken.
Assemblyman Beers:
On page 1, line 9, we introduce the term “contestant.” Does that refer to either the winner or the loser, for lack of a better term? Are you getting at both parties there?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Not to my understanding. The contestant was the individual who filed the contest of the election.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
I don’t think we can put “loser” in there, Mr. Beers.
Assemblyman Beers:
I guess, as I would literally construe this, the person who didn’t file the contest would not be legally allowed to investigate issues relating to the contest. I’m not sure you intend to go there. Does that make sense?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes, I think I see what you’re saying. No, that’s not the intent. I’ll have to find out what they mean by “contestant,” because either party should be investigating all along once the contest has been made.
Assemblyman Beers:
In Section D on the top of page 2, it’s pretty clear that you’re referring to the person who filed the contest only.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct.
Assemblyman Beers:
There seems to be a little disconnect there. From a policy standpoint, I vehemently disagree with subsections 5 and 6 of Section 2. For the first part of that bill, I don’t think you mean to preclude that the contestant who got the most votes is able to investigate.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Hopefully, I’m not violating protocol here, but in Section 3, I think that’s what they’re trying to get at. Whether they do or not, I’m not sure.
Assemblyman Beers:
That just gives the authority to take the deposition. That doesn’t go for any other additional pieces of an investigation.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I’ll make a note of that to ask Legal. Thank you. So it should not preclude either party from investigating.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I just wanted to mention something my colleague, Mr. Beers, spoke about, subsections 5 and 6 in Section 2. If I understand this correctly, this is to weed out any frivolous suits. For instance, if you decide you want a recount, you have to pay for that. Am I correct? Isn’t the intent of this just to prevent someone from frivolously making a claim?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It’s intended to make them think, to make sure they’re filing this with a reasonable backup of information for justification. What our staff found was we could have assessed fines without this kind of language, but we wanted to make it very clear so that someone who does choose to do that at least knows what the impact might be.
Assemblyman McCleary:
If I were considering a challenge, I would think very carefully to make sure I had my ducks in a row before I did that because of the language.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That’s the intent.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I guess I shouldn’t weigh in too much more on this particular bill, but it seems to me that the way that we proceed here is that since we are considered to be elected the day after our election, whoever has the majority of votes, or plurality in an election where there are two or more candidates, the candidate with the highest number of votes is then the Assemblyperson. None of us are until we are certified by the body itself, by a committee of the body, which usually takes place at that very first session. We’re not allowed to be sworn in; however, we are the candidates between the time of the election and the time of being sworn in, in which case we officially pick up the title of Assemblyperson. We are the Assemblyperson designee, because we have all the powers up until that time where the contestant that is clearly the other candidate or candidates in the election.
Maybe Mr. Beers’ concern with line 9 is with the term “should be” in the plural. That’s in Section 1. Relative to Section 2, subsection 6, on page 2, lines 35 through 39, we’re really trying to say that if the house determines that there was no reason for the election to be contested, the costs then move to the challenger who had brought this cost to the state of Nevada without due cause unless the body itself determines that those costs should not be incurred, which is what the purpose of subsection 5 is. At least, that’s my reading of the bill.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
I think we need to take a look at it and make sure we get clarification from Legal.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It’s kind of hard when you don’t have Legal. Because they’re strapped, we don’t have one that actually sits in on our Committee. They do try to watch, and I make notes, and I’m sure we can e-mail the Committee members in the next few days. By Tuesday, we should be able to come back with some language, if that’s the case, for clarification purposes. As I indicated, I called this in on the deadline so we at least had some language to deal with the contest.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any other questions of the Committee?
Assemblyman Beers:
I’m trying to understand the distinction between Sections 5 and 6.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Let me start with Section 6. If the contest is heard, and the house upholds who was duly elected and does not overturn it, the contestant is responsible for the costs incurred. I don’t understand the language on lines 38 and 39. They don’t make sense to me, and that’s a question mark that I’ve had, and that’s what I pointed out earlier. In subsection 5, “If the contest is dismissed pursuant to subsection 3” of Section 2, “the contestant is responsible for all costs incurred in connection with the contest,” unless the house says, “We thought they brought it forth in good faith. We will not charge them.” At least that’s my reading of them.
Assemblyman Beers:
So Section 6 would be if the contest is heard by the Legislature, and Section 5 is if it is not. Is that the primary difference?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct.
Assemblyman Beers:
The cost to be recovered would be the same.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct. But they wouldn’t charge them in subsection 5 if they withdrew. It refers back to where they withdraw. If they find that the circumstances would be unjust for the contestant to be responsible for such costs, and they had agreed to withdraw, they would not have to assess the charges.
Assemblyman Beers:
Whereas, under number 6, if we could take it all the way to the legislative hearing, there’s no wiggle room, there’s no room for mercy.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct.
Assemblyman Beers:
Is the intent here that the winner pays the loser? As this is written, I’m reading it to read where the person who files the contest would pay the expenses of the other person, except if the contest were successful. This does not indicate that the person who was contested pays the expenses of the contestor.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct. They weren’t the ones who filed the contest in the first place, even if they had been overturned. They would not be liable as this is written.
Assemblyman Beers:
Is that your intent?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes. If somebody brings a contest, and they overturned it, it’s overturned. But they weren’t the ones that initiated the contest.
Assemblyman Beers:
I’m failing to find the justice there. When I look at the contest that we had here in Assemblyman Conklin’s case, we had one side spend about $2,500 preparing the contest, and the other spent $40,000 or more defending against it. At the very least, I would think that whoever wins gets reimbursed from whoever loses rather than just have a one-way avenue for that reimbursement.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
You’re welcome to bring some language for us to ponder. We’ll take this up in work session next week.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any other questions concerning A.B. 526 for Ms. Giunchigliani? Seeing none, I have no one signed in to speak either for, against, or neutral on this bill. Is there anyone who has any comments for A.B. 526 at this time? Seeing none, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 526, and we will open the hearing on A.J.R. 11.
Assembly Joint Resolution 11: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to require gubernatorial appointment of members to Board of Regents and to specify number and terms of members. (BDR C-18)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The bill before you is a recommendation for appointment of the Board of Regents. [You should have] some background information of what I tried to pull together regarding what all other states do. You will note that it is a “hodge podge.” I found no real consistency in any of those formats. They have different government structures throughout. What I did find, though, at least according to staff analysis that had been done, in their opinion, Nevada was one of the only states that still did not have some form of appointment mechanism.
The bill before you was written for full appointment of all seven regents. Again, it did decrease the size of it as in a subsequent bill that’s been heard in Education. The intent was that the Governor then appoint. I tried to take language from a variety of different sections to say you wouldn’t want, in my opinion, a governor to just pick whomever they wanted. So I was trying to come up with a format for groups to at least make recommendations for the Governor to choose from. We do that in a lot of our appointment authorities currently for the PERS [Public Employees Retirement System] Board and for many of the various types of organizational boards. Groups recommend names, and then the Governor selects from that list. That’s what the intent is from letters (a) through (g).
Finally, subsection 3 just sets up the process for the revolving of the seats until the terms get into play based on the constitutional amendment. It also reinforces that within the appointments, the Governor needs to be sensitive to representing urban and rural areas, and women, ethnic, and racial minorities in their appointments. It also clarifies that no more than four members of the Board of Regents may be members of the same party.
I’ve handed out for discussion purposes an amendment (Exhibit E). I was talking to a couple of people downstairs, and one of them thought that we should at least consider that we actually just amend the Constitution to allow the Legislature by law to establish the number, terms, and appointment and selection of the board so if in the future another body wants to change this, you didn’t have to do this by Constitution, you could do it by statute. That’s food for thought for the Committee.
The second one is an amendment that I actually prefer. I do not necessarily totally support full appointment, so I’ve given you a suggestion that I think might be a reasonable compromise. What I’m suggesting is that four members of the seven be appointed by the Governor, and we can come up with lists of what groups can nominate. I’m suggesting that three be elected, and that one would come from each of the congressional seats. That way, you have a blended board, you still have public input, you have appointment by the Governor, and you could actually have a little bit more accountability but also a little bit more freedom as a blend or mix.
I also suggested deleting (a), (b), (c), and (d), and just saying that individuals who have had previous education experience. It could be in anything, kindergarten through higher education, maybe they had been an employee, they had been a professor, they had worked, but they weren’t currently employed in that situation. That just might be a consideration. Then just keep the other items, (e), (f), and (g), as recommendations for nominations to the Governor.
Some states do have students as ex officios. That might be something else that we might wish to consider as well. I asked for this bill approximately two years ago after the redistricting. The decision was done politically, in my opinion, to increase them to a size of 13, which many in this body at that time did not agree with. We felt that we wanted a workable board. I do not see this as a threat to the regents. It’s a tough job. It’s like being on a school board. It’s probably one of the more thankless jobs that are out there, next to ours, in the long run.
I think we need to empower them to be successful and to be policy-driven, not micromanaging. You’re always going to have some politicalization. It’s going to happen no matter what, but we’re trying to depoliticize the board as much as possible. This is a suggestion for us to consider.
I also think it’s a way to save some dollars. If you look at the cost of just running that many board meetings for 13 people now, the last numbers I had were based, I believe, on an 11-member board, and it was around $638,000 a year; that comes out of their formula funding. That actually can go back into programs for students, and I think that ought to be the ultimate goal of everybody, is to make sure that we’re providing the best education for the students and then making sure that the working conditions are good for the people that choose to work within the system. That’s really the intent of A.J.R. 11. I’m very open.
I’ve spoken with the Governor. He wants the appointment. He would accept the blended concept as well. I do think that there’s a great deal of support for that. I did not want to go into a dog and pony show, so I chose not to respond to the e-mails and letters that I’ve received in the last two years and called [those people] out to come and testify, because I think that would be inappropriate. This is a policy decision, and I wanted the decision to be made on that, not on emotions or personalities as best we can get away from that. That’s really the genesis, and I’ll try to answer any questions. Maybe we could have some good discussion. I know Regent Seastrand and Regent Derby are here to speak about their concerns as well.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
I have one small question, kind of a concern, but I guess it’s not that big of a deal. On page 3, subsection 6, Section 2, lines 3 and 4, where we’re talking about political parties. Is there a particular reason that’s in there? If we’re going to give the Governor just four to appoint, we know relatively what the policy of those four people is going to be.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The reason I believe the language was placed in there is that most laws that we have regarding boards and commissions have [stipulations] that we don’t want one party overwhelming another party, and that they have to be sensitive to that when they deal with appointments. That’s just kind of common throughout our current statutes.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any other questions for Ms. Giunchigliani? [There were none.]
Douglas Seastrand, Chairman, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada:
[Introduced himself] It’s good to be here with you again today. I’m here representing the regents in an official capacity as the chairman. As you might imagine, the regents have an opinion about this. I’m here to bring you their thoughts. We spent some time deliberating on this issue at our last meeting, and we certainly had some good discussion about that. I’m here to bring you their opinion and what they feel about it.
We do feel that this is a very important and significant change that is being suggested. This is a constitutional amendment and certainly not to be taken lightly. If I had to sum up in short words what the regent opinion is, they truly feel that they want to be representative of the people. They want to be elected by the people so that they can respond to the constituencies that they are elected by. There are a lot of people who have no other place to turn except to their regent. They call their Regent because they elected them, and they say, “We need some help with the university or the community college,” or whatever it may be. They truly feel that representation by the people and for the people is the appropriate way to have representation of the board.
[Mr. Seastrand, continued] I might say that they would consider this, and we would consider that this bill would be unnecessary. As it currently stands in the Constitution is adequate. It has stood for 140 years. The Constitution was written in 1864. I was recently reminded that there were several sections of the Constitution that create different groups in the state: the Legislature, the constitutional officers, the judges, and the regents. We, as regents, even have our own section. In all of those and others, they are all elected. I think that was the foresight of those who framed that Constitution. It’s held for 140 years. We would, as regents, feel that it would not be necessary to make a change. We feel that the current authority that this Committee has, which is setting the size and the term of office, should be sufficient. That’s our official position.
When I ask myself the question, though, about elected versus appointed, frankly, I don’t know if I have the perfect answer. What is better? Is it better to have elected versus appointed? I’m not sure we have the answer. In fact, it is quite different everywhere. We heard from the Chair that every state does it differently. I guess what I would suggest and what I would bring forward here is that we really need to study this. We need to spend some time doing this. I wonder if we want to put all of the specifics into the Constitution that if you’re going to make any constitutional amendments, there should be some very minimal changes that would be made there. We, as regents, feel it would be unnecessary to go forward on this at this point in time.
When you ask the question between elected and appointed, I have to ask this question. Which is better? Is it better to be elected by district to have a constituency base like the congressional districts, or is it better to be elected statewide? Which is better? We’re a statewide board. Should we be elected at large? It’s a question that needs to be answered. I think that’s part of the reason why I feel like we need to have a study. We need to find out what will work in the state of Nevada. Everyone will have a little different opinion about who should be on the board and who should be represented. We’ve had some suggestions, and the Chair has given me a good starting point and some things to consider. I would just say that we, as a board, feel that this would be unnecessary at this time.
I also have with me our previous Chair, Dr. Jill Derby. She is nationally recognized, and she does work with many other regent groups across the nation. We’re very fortunate to have her as one of our regents, and I’ll ask her to talk.
Jill Derby, Ph.D, Board of Regents, University and Community College System of Nevada:
[Introduced herself] I’m speaking to you today both as a long-time veteran of our Nevada Board of Regents—I’ve had 14 years of service on our board—and also as someone who works with our national association as a board mentor with other boards around the country trying to facilitate workshops to help boards look at their own functioning.
As I thought about my testimony today and what I wanted to say to you, the question that kept coming back to me is, what’s broken with the current structure that we’re trying to change? I think it’s important to say that my sense is that the perception of the Board of Regents in the last couple of years that has come about through the unfortunate and disappointing actions and public statements of a few regents is really the problem that motivates any kind of change.
It strikes me that to make radical changes in the system of government of higher education that has really served us very well in Nevada for decades, because of the disappointing actions of a few individuals, is really not well thought out and risks throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don’t deny, and I can’t defend, individual actions and statements that brought about media attention and some disappointing public perception of the board. The board itself has acted to address those in recent policy guidelines that we’ve adopted to manage ourselves. If there are problems with board behavior, then it’s really a matter for the board to manage, and we’re in the process of doing that. To take on a radical change in our structure of higher education without very careful thought worries me very much.
I want to speak first to the issue of size. To go to a board of seven would be a national extreme in higher education governance. There isn’t anybody who speaks with authority or writes with authority on board governance in the country that would recommend a board of seven to be the state board of regents for any state. The figures tend to be much larger. Eleven, thirteen, and fifteen are considered good numbers and anything less not good. There are reasons for that.
One of them is that the recommendation of all those that write and talk about higher education, and there are libraries full of it, but people who are recognized as authorities would tell you that one of the most critical aspects of effective board functioning is a good committee structure. I think you all can relate to that as the Legislature. You couldn’t possibly, as a large body, meet and discuss every issue to come before the Legislature.
[Dr. Derby, continued] It’s the same with the Board of Regents. With boards of trustees and governors across the country that govern higher education, higher education institutions are very complex organizations and require a committee structure at the board level to really deal with all the issues. Then committees come forward with recommendations for the full board. You find on boards of regents and trustees that people who serve are often very active, busy people that don’t have a great deal of time, so it’s important that time be managed most efficiently, and a committee structure is what allows for a thorough discussion of issues around particular segments. We have our Academic Affairs Committee, Research and Student Affairs, Budget Committee, Investment Committee, and so forth. Those committees are the working engines of the board.
I have actually worked with only one board in this country that is as small as seven, and they were terribly frustrated in trying to make that structure work. It was a legislative mandate in New Mexico. They couldn’t work effectively with a committee structure, so everything had to come before the board, but their members were so busy they didn’t have time for long meetings. They were really stuck in that dilemma.
The other problem with seven is that if you even tried to have a committee structure, you could only have three members of the committee. Then two people could decide an agenda item on a committee that goes as a recommendation of a board. It is simply not a good way to manage. We have found with our board of eleven, and now thirteen, that there’s a certain balance and ballast that larger numbers offer, such that it takes seven members on our board now to pass an item on an agenda. You can count on a range of thoughtful opinions coming into that deliberation. If you have a smaller number, seven, then you would have four making the critical decisions that determine the future of our education. I think you’re putting that very large responsibility in very few hands. I want to make that case that to begin with the number seven is very small. It would represent an absolute national extreme in terms of a governing structure of a board of regents for a state higher education system.
Then I want to say a word about the appointed versus the elected, and there’s been a large body of literature, I assure you, that’s been written about this. It is, as the Chairwoman mentioned, hard to find one model that everybody has adopted as [the standard] because states are different. States are very different in their composition, in their demographics, in their layout, in their culture and history of higher education and all of it. It seems like a system evolves to meet the needs of the state.
[Dr. Derby, continued] I would suggest to you that the current structure we have in place now, an elected board of thirteen, has evolved to meet the needs of this fast-growing state, and our higher education system is also the fastest-growing in the country. We’re also a very complex system in that we have eight institutions within our higher education system. Most boards operate with one institution. But to be a board that is the governing structure for eight institutions is a very complex sort of operation. Seven would be, I think, an impossibly small size to have an effective board.
I’m concerned that we have a structure that works. What hasn’t worked is a few members have not behaved well and have affected the public perception of the board. But I would be very concerned for us to radically change a structure that has really served higher education in Nevada very well over many decades out of the unfortunate and disappointing actions of a few.
I want to say, as well, about elected versus appointed that an elected board has certain strengths. One of the strengths is that people—and you will be able to resonate fully with this—people elected to a position are very clear about whom they serve. They’re very clear that they serve the public interests so that regents and trustees elected to that position are very much the surrogate voice for the public in the boardroom. There’s a different flavor, a tone, I would say, that comes with an appointed board, somebody who has their position because of a gubernatorial appointment. People elected know who they serve, bring the voice of the public, and the concerns of the public, because having run for public office, as you know, you hear from very many people what their concerns are, what their worries are, what works for them, and what doesn’t work for them in higher education.
As an elected member of the Board of Regents, I regularly hear a lot from the public. Not only are elected boards responsive to the public who they see themselves as serving, but they are also available and accessible to the public. That’s a nice thing for the public. People don’t hesitate to call us and say, “This isn’t working for me,” and to feel that there’s somebody that will look into that for them. That’s a nice thing that the Constitution established 140 years ago for the people of Nevada. They would have access to the members of the governing board determining the course and future and direction of higher education, because they would be elected from districts, and people call. As a result of that, if there’s a criticism of elected boards around the country, it can be that they are rigorous, maybe overly rigorous, in their oversight and monitoring of the performance of higher education, because they see themselves so much coming from the public and representing those interests. That isn’t so much the case, often, with appointed boards that have a greater sense of reporting to who appointed them.
[Dr. Derby, continued] I would also say that a final point about elected boards is that people that run for this office put a great deal of time, put their own resources and effort, and you all understand this, into running for office. Once we get there and we’re faced with the enormous task, and it is, of being a regent in this state. We put in maybe 10, 15 hours a week. Our Chair puts in far more than that. Just going through the information of our eight busy, growing, and thriving institutions. It’s an interesting thing that one of the problems of boards across the country is that members that serve on boards are very busy people, and having enough time, they often just don’t have the time to take. One of the things about running for office is you are very clear that you chose this, that you sought it, that you ran for this office, and then you find out when you get there it’s going to be a lot of work.
We’re not paid in Nevada. As you know, we’re a volunteer board. Often, the volume of work that faces them surprises regents who are elected. It’s a big responsibility, and elected boards, I think, do it well.
There is what is seen as an advantage of appointed boards that you can be more selective in the selection process. Certain positions can be filled if there seems to be a need, or maybe very prominent individuals in a community that would like that role can be offered it. Maybe you can select that this board needs somebody who has strengths [in a given area]. That can be seen as an advantage of an appointed board. I think in fairness it’s fair to point that out to you.
I want to say, just in closing, that many states around the country have chosen to look at their higher education structures. The question is always, “Do we have the kind of structure that best serves our need?” I would propose to you that that’s the kind of question that needs to be asked. Nevada is a unique state, as is every state. Looking for another model somewhere else is helpful and can be informative. The states that are taking on this inquiry into whether they have the very best government structure they can have often will appoint an interim committee that studies it for a good year and brings in professional experts and looks around the country and looks at other states that are similar or not similar and look at what works and what doesn’t work.
I would propose to you that that’s the proper course to take. If there is an interest in making a change in the structure of our higher education board, I would propose that it should be something that should be studied very carefully. We believe that we have a system and a structure that works well. We feel we’ve had some problems over the last couple of years with some individuals, and the board itself is addressing that. I would ask you to consider not throwing the baby out with the bath water and to make radical changes that would bring us unknown problems. There isn’t a state with a higher education structure that doesn’t have some kind of problems with that structure. To make a radical change without considering what new kinds of problems that might bring is a serious thing.
[Dr. Derby, continued] One of our regrets as a board is that, while the actions of a few has caused media attention, this board has a very proud policy record of what it has accomplished over the same period of time. But it seems that never gets the media attention. Through all this time that has been somewhat noisy and contentious, the board has adopted an outstanding master plan for the future of higher education in Nevada. It has hired outstanding leaders to lead our institutions and our systems. We have many new programs that we’ve taken on. We’ve reviewed programs that don’t work. We’ve grown. We’ve encouraged more students to come into our system. We’re now serving so many more Nevadans and serving them well.
We’re proud of our record. We’re disappointed about some of the publicity, and we’d ask you to consider well before you make a change.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Thank you, Dr. Derby. I have a question for either one of you. I’m just reading some of the background material that we have here (Exhibit F). There are only two states in the United States that have an elected board of regents. One is Michigan, and one is Nevada. Michigan elects its state board of education, but they have a very limited role in higher education in the state. In other words, it’s mostly K-12 authority, leaving Nevada as what appears to be the only state with a higher education governing board, the Board of Regents. I just wanted to throw that out at you. I don’t know if you have a comment. I don’t think that there was any testimony on behalf of the bill talking about the actions of certain regents, so I’d like to sort of limit that. We’re talking about policy.
Dr. Jill Derby:
Let me say about elected boards, there are more than that. The structures are hard to compare, because what you have, for instance, in Nebraska, is an elected board that is the governing board for the University of Nebraska, which is a multi-campus sort of university structure. In Colorado, you also have an elected board, but I think what you were particularly looking at is where you have a statewide board. There are also many elected boards at the community college level around the United States. So election onto a governing board is not that unusual. In fact, it could be that the majority of community college boards of trustees and regents are elected. There are the four states that I know of, but you’re correct that the other two that I mentioned to you, Colorado and Nebraska, do not have a statewide governing board. It’s more limited than that. Those are also other examples of elected boards.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Right, because Nebraska has a coordinating commission for the postsecondary education, which is appointed by the governor from members of the public at large and by district for the state. They govern higher education.
Dr. Jill Derby:
There’s a difference between a coordinating board and a governing board. A governing board is the one that actually has the authority to make the decisions. A coordinating board is usually something that is an umbrella structure over that the others report to. The terms coordinating versus governing, it’s a big distinction in higher education. Within Nebraska, for example, the University of Nebraska is the largest and most prominent sort of higher education structure in the state. It’s sort of “the one” in Nebraska. Actually, I’ve worked with the Nebraska board a couple of times, and they’ll tell you they are sort of higher education in Nebraska. That’s where sometimes making the comparisons is difficult. It is between what is the function of the board, whether it’s an umbrella kind of coordinating structure, or whether or not it’s the actual governing structure. North Carolina, for example, has a governing board that is statewide. It’s a large one, by the way. It’s an appointed board, but it has over 30 members to it. The individual institutions have their own boards of trustees. That’s another model that’s popular. Often it’s just hard to compare them.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any other questions for Dr. Derby or Mr. Seastrand?
Assemblyman Anderson:
Thank you, Dr. Derby. I appreciate the hard work the regents do. I enjoy the controversy it causes from time to time. It’s always nice to see someone other than the Legislature on the hot seat.
I’m really kind of perplexed by the problem in this regard. It seems to me that we have many institutions here in the state of Nevada that have outgrown their usefulness. Therefore, we’ve historically changed their function and title. I think at one point in time one of the jobs and duties of the Lieutenant Governor was to be the warden of the state prison. That’s what they did when they weren’t there, and as Lieutenant Governor maybe they still do that. I don’t know. We used to have an elected state mine inspector, and we used to have a state engineer, and several other of those functions that we have now. Even the superintendent of public instruction was once an elected position, and many states still have that as an elected position.
[Assemblyman Anderson, continued] We have, however, kind of in the progressive era that many of those jobs were changed over to people with more credentialed—whatever that term is supposed to mean—responsibility so that they had people with some sort of professional background, which the appointed process allows. It’s kind of like the civil service kind of idea. Since so many states have moved to this system, and Nevada’s educational system, particularly at the college level and the community college level, which has grown so rapidly—I really am coming to a point here, believe it or not.
We’re no longer a two-institution system. I graduated from the University of Nevada, and there was no University of Nevada, Las Vegas. There was no community college system. That’s a while ago, I recognize, but in a little over 30 years the state has changed dramatically. Maybe the need for this institution in its format needs to be changed. Maybe that problem is the regents’ problem. Maybe it’s the legislative problem that we need to reexamine your duties to formulate it so you don’t have the broad sweeping powers that you once had when you only had to look after one institution, or two. Would you like to comment on that?
Douglas Seastrand:
Yes, that is a good question. I guess that what I’m saying here is we don’t know for sure. We’re saying the structure we currently have, we feel as a board, does work. Is there a better structure? Is it time to make a change? Perhaps. If we are going to make that change, and as you said, we are a growing state. Things are changing; things do change. I guess I would suggest that we maybe not put everything specifically into the Constitution. Perhaps we do leave the Legislature a little more flexibility. If the question is whether or not you’re going to have appointed versus elected, right now you don’t have a choice in the Constitution. I guess what I’m saying is, we, as a board, feel that as it is, it is working, and we can make it work. If this Committee and the Legislature feels that there needs to be a change, then maybe we should have a study. Maybe there should be something done to look at it, because there are a lot of questions that I’m not sure we all have the answers to yet. There is time. If this is going to be a constitutional amendment, there’s at least three years before this goes into place. There is time to have an interim study committee commissioned to look at it, and perhaps those questions can be answered more fully.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I can’t imagine that the Board of Regents would really want to put themselves out of business, but maybe to change their function, which would only be the duty of the legislative body to change it as clearly outlined in the Constitution, since we assign you the duties that you have. Maybe the way to solve the problem is to establish an appointed body, and then you get to oversee the appointed bodies.
Douglas Seastrand:
There are some that have done it that way. I guess the question I again pose is, what is the right way? I’m not sure any of us have the answer today, so I would hope that we don’t settle on what the answer is today, and that we give it its full due consideration so that, if there is a need for a change, if there is a sense from the Legislature that change needs to be made, that it’s done very carefully and very cautiously and with full consideration.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any other questions from the Committee for our regents? [There were none.] All right, then, we’ll move along. Thank you.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
[Introduced herself] It will be no secret to anyone in this body that I have much more confidence in elections than I do in the political patronage that accompanies appointments. We do not feel that appointments result in less politics, but indeed we think more with political patronage that does occur with virtually every appointment process. With that just as a statement of philosophy, I did also want to indicate that we have some concern with the specific lineup of individuals that would be considered for appointment. It lacks recognition that individuals who serve in professions for which the universities have programs would be considered. It perhaps lacks some balance in the philosophies of the individuals. I understood Ms. Giunchigliani’s indication to be that she’s very wide open to possible amendments, and some of those amendments might help to resolve some of those things.
I would like to say that there is another possibility that the Committee could consider, and that possibility as your, I guess it’s not precisely your sister committee, but the Senate Government Affairs Committee in S.B. 143, with regard to the public administrator, has inserted some actual qualifications for elections. It is possible, and I’m assuming that that’s constitutional, I had some doubts about it originally, but they’ve indicated and passed that out and indicated that they have reason to believe that’s constitutional. If that’s so, then it’s possible to have the best of both worlds, establish some qualifications by the Legislature for those who would stand for election for this body. That, of course, will require some careful consideration as well. As has been indicated, this is a very serious decision, but it doesn’t work to go ahead and pass it and then take those three years to have a study, because what you’ve passed has to stand, as you know, exactly the same in two sessions. You can’t just start it and then change it along the way very easily. Thank you.
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
We are concerned about appointed boards versus elected boards as was stated earlier by Lucille [Lusk]. We feel that oftentimes the concerns of the general public are not well represented by a narrowly selected board. We are very concerned about that. On some of these things, I’d like to point out some specific concerns about this particular bill that I have.
I would draw your attention to page 2, to line 8, where it says that they would have to appoint names submitted by organization or association that represents licensed educational personnel in this state. Well, there aren’t a lot of times in the many past years that the teachers union, Nevada State Education Association, and I agreed on a lot of things, although I’m excited to say that we’re agreeing on a lot more. For instance, we’re both against No Child Left Behind, because it’s a federal takeover of education. I would not feel that someone from that organization could ever represent me honestly rather than someone I would have the opportunity to vote for.
On line 11, we looked that there would be someone on there who represents the parents of students in this state. We would have to assume that that’s the PTA. I have found often that the state PTA is lockstep with the teachers’ union, which would not represent my philosophy or the philosophy of many others on many issues, although there are issues which we have worked together here at the Legislature on several times, and we have successfully worked together. But in general, they would not represent my concerns or the concerns of those I represent.
If you look to line 15, you will see that it talks about “organization and association which represents women.” Now, I’m a woman who has been actively working in this state on issues and been testifying at this Legislature and participating for many years as a volunteer since 1971. I would suggest that not one of those “organizations that represent women” ever represented my concerns. I do belong to some organizations that represent women that represent me, but they would never be chosen on this board because they wouldn’t be identified that way. For instance, Eagle Forum represents families, and most of the people that belong to it are women, but we would never be selected to be a part of this board, so our representation would not be there.
[Ms. Hansen, continued] It also talks about ethnic or racial minorities. But I belong to a minority party, and I would suggest to you as it goes over here on page 3 to line 4 that they wouldn’t be able to have too many people of the same political party that there would never be a chance that anybody from a minor political party would be appointed. So they wouldn’t be represented.
I’m very concerned about the specifics of this particular bill and the fact that the concerns I have, would never be represented. What about home schoolers? I home-schooled my children. We have many people who are associated with it who are now home-schooling theirs as their choice, paying the money to do it themselves. Most of their children go to college. My son, as a home schooler, started at Truckee Meadows at age 15. There’s no representation for them and their concerns on these members that are identified on here. They are a minority, but certainly their children do very well in college and they should be represented.
I see the way that this board is drawn is discriminatory against many of the individuals who would be very interested in the success of their children and of the university. I’m very concerned about that. There’s lots of money involved in this. I think whenever there is money involved, we’re far better off to have people who are accountable, like you are, to the public for the way money is spent. I don’t think that appointed people, in my experience—in fact, it’s just the opposite. Appointed people are not accountable, and they don’t usually respond well to the public, because they are not elected. That’s one of the things we heard the regents talking about, that they really try to respond to the concerns of individual people. That’s very important, because it’s hard to deal with all this government, especially when they aren’t elected, and they feel they have no accountability towards you.
This Legislature works great because there are people here from all walks of life. Every time I come into a committee and I hear some of you talk about different things, every one of you has a different experience. You’re not all professional people. You don’t all have college educations. You don’t all have degrees. I think that’s one of the best things about this institution, because you bring so many varied experiences to life, which can represent the average person out there better than a board made up of all professionals who may have never had to struggle to meet the bills at the end of the month and some of those other things. So I think that it works very well to have a board of regents that’s representative of different walks life, that’s representative of the people of the state of Nevada.
It may be good to have a study. There might be a better way. I can’t say. We certainly don’t want to see our right to vote on these people, and have some opportunity to participate ourselves in this process, be denied us. We see a movement, not just on this bill, but on others, that would take away our right to vote on different offices in the state of Nevada. I know this is well-meaning. We want the very best kind of government we can have, and we need to go carefully as we change the Constitution. The reason it’s hard to change the Constitution is because it was meant to be that way, so we can walk carefully towards any kind of a change that we make. And we need to be sure that that’s what we want to do, because if you make a mistake, it sure is hard to change.
[Ms. Hansen continued] I appreciate your careful consideration of this. Remember, we don’t want to make up a board that doesn’t represent the people and that can discriminate against many of the concerns of people who might be very interested in what happens at our universities. I attended the university, although I graduated from another one. My children are now attending UNR and Truckee Meadows. These are very important things for many people in the state of Nevada. Whether or not they are professionals, they want their children to go to college and experience these opportunities. Thank you.
Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association:
[Introduced herself] I speak in support of the concept of A.J.R. 11. I think that we’ve reached a point in time where given the change within the structure of the university system, given the dollars that are involved, that the appointments are a proper way to go. The concern I have with the bill, and I’ve expressed this to the maker of the bill, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, is that my experience in the Constitution and taxes is that the Constitution should be kept very much a policy document where we do not put details in. For that reason, I would suggest that subsection 2 of Section 7 in this provision be totally deleted. I think that is the function of enabling legislation, and that is, I think, one of the points, while we disagree on elected versus appointed regions, I think that’s one of the points that Ms. Hansen made, is that the Constitution was meant to be a document that we could rely on for policy and should not be easily changed.
Fortunately, we’re not like the state of Louisiana that seems to change their entire constitution every four to six years. Be that as it may, to that point, because of the length of time it does take to change, if you create this as a policy, and I believe you have that in part on one of the amendments that was offered by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, where you’re simply allowing the Legislature to appoint and set the conditions as necessary in the future, there are a couple of things with that.
[Ms. Vilardo, continued] Number one, given that it is approximately five years before you would have this taking place, because it’s a four-year process once you go through the two Legislative sessions, have it go on the ballot, and then you have to have enabling legislation. It would be possible to have some enabling legislation that was worked on prior to this ballot question being passed. It’s also possible that you can structure this and set this up so that the effective date of this might be 2007, giving you enough time to structure what you need to structure as to how the appointments would be done, whether they would be done by qualifications. I’ve heard discussion about the qualifications that are in here and not representative. I come from a different point of view. My concern is that the university system is a very large part of the state’s budget. For me, on qualifications, I would want to see some financial expertise within the university system. I might want to see somebody who is familiar with planning and building within this. That’s something that could be worked out within the enabling legislation. I would urge you to consider the bill with amendments.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Thank you, Ms. Vilardo. Are there any questions from the Committee for Ms. Vilardo? [There were none.]
David Schumann, Independent American Party:
[Introduced himself] I’m generally speaking against the bill, although after listening to Ms. Vilardo, with Section 2 gone, I might be in favor of this. The university not only represents students and parents, but it represents all of us. We’re paying to get the best-educated people that we can possibly get. To have a list, like that on page 2, severely limits the ability of people who don’t happen to fall into one of those categories to have any influence.
Right off the bat, I, too, was a kid 40 years ago, and I can tell you that, looking back on it, I don’t think those of us who went to college in the 60s were qualified to serve on the board of regents at all, either the people of my persuasion, or people of other persuasions. We were in our 20s, and it’s something you grow out of. Everybody can be cured of it. I would like to have a little more gray hairs sitting in judgment of this, and that’s what I think you get from people that are willing, as the regent lady who had been a president here said, people who are willing to take their time and money to actually run for this. First of all, they must have had some kind of success in life, or they wouldn’t have the position to be able to run for it.
When you’re going to be in charge of supervising a bunch of scholars whose egos can sometimes equal those of prima donnas in Hollywood, that takes a little judgment and wisdom, too. Just going down and picking off a list of folks like this, I don’t see that they have the depth to do this. I’m with those that think that a study is due, and please don’t just limit it to state institutions. I think some of the best institutions in this country are private institutions, and they have private boards of regents. There’s probably a reason why they have private boards of regents. I’m not a regent myself, but I’ve got to think that time proves some of this. I’d like to attach my position to that of those that suggested that you do a study on this and see just exactly what sort of demands running an eight-institution university [system] creates, and then look at how you would select the folks that have the depth to handle those demands. Thank you for your time.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Thank you, Mr. Schumann. That’s the extent of folks I have signed in for A.J.R. 11. We will close the hearing on A.J.R. 11.
Assemblywoman McClain:
In between bills, I would just like to go on record as voting yes on both of the work session bills.
Assemblywoman Weber:
I would also like to do the same since I was out at the time that those votes were taken, if I could be added on the record as a yea on both of those measures. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
We’re going to open the hearing on A.B. 436.
Assembly Bill 436: Revises provisions governing ballot questions. (BDR 24-917)
Assemblyman Don Gustavson, District No. 30, Washoe County:
[Introduced himself and read from a prepared statement (Exhibit G)] Thank you for allowing me this time to present this bill. A constituent actually suggested this bill to me, and I thought it was a great idea. In fact, that constituent is my father, who moved here from another state recently and just had his first election, this last general election in November, and he came up with this question and suggestion.
How many times do our constituents or friends ask us about a ballot question? Or who to vote for, as far as that goes? I know that I am asked all the time. Ballot questions are sometimes vague and not fully understood by many. What A.B. 436 would do is to help our voters have a better understanding of statewide ballot questions. This would be accomplished by having every question for a constitutional amendment or a statewide measure proposed by initiative or referendum via accompanied by an argument in favor of with a rebuttal to that argument, and then you’d also have an argument in opposition with a rebuttal to that argument. This is already required for county and city ballot questions. We just want to do this to our statewide questions, also.
This would require the Secretary of State to form two committees—in the bill it states this—just as the counties and cities do now. One would be to prepare an argument in favor of a ballot question and also prepare the rebuttal to argument in opposition. The other committee would prepare the argument in opposition and then do the rebuttal for the argument in favor. The other part of this bill, I believe an important part, would be to require that all arguments for and against the rebuttals list the names of the persons, organizations, or governmental entities that assisted in writing such explanations. Mr. Vice Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the time. I’d be happy to take any questions.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Mr. Gustavson, we had distributed to us, and I think it’s going to become part of the record, a memorandum from the City of Sparks (Exhibit H). The city clerk observed the difficulty in trying to get people to do this when the names were going to be published. Oftentimes, people with this expertise will come forward and be willing to do it and try to do it objectively on the condition that they’re not going to be identified. Do you consider that to be an essential element of the bill? If you do, why do you think it’s so essential on page 5, line 28, Section 4, of your bill to be so important?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I feel it is essential myself, but I’m open for suggestions on this. I have not seen that memorandum, but I feel that this gives the voter a better opportunity and where that particular opinion is coming from, what particular group, not necessarily an individual. I put individuals on there because I know some are written by individuals. For instance, a group or organization, just like the bill we just had, or say we have a bill coming up, or resolution, I should say, of a cap on property tax. Somebody’s going to write that argument for, a group or organization could possibly write the argument for that, and one can write an argument against that. This would give the voter a better opportunity of where these people are coming from. They’d know who the groups are who are familiar with that.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I guess that’s the heart of the question. Do you think that value should be placed upon the voters’ reading of the information for making a value judgment of the group who put forth the opinion, because some people who would vote against a particular group just because of who they are? I know that’s hard to imagine, but there are groups that I often find myself in total agreement with, but from time to time I think, “How could I possibly be in agreement with that group?” It seems to me the essence is trying to get to a well-written pro argument and a clearly written negative argument to the question rather than who wrote this or what organization or group. That’s the reason why I bring forth the question. I think the city clerk brings forth a different issue, but my question would be clearly to why should we be judging value of a group or organization rather than the argument.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Thank you, Mr. Anderson. You bring up a very good point, and I pretty much agree with you. A lot of people put the value on both, and some will put the value in one or the other. I can see the value really should be in the argument itself. This is why I’m bringing the bill before this Committee, because we’re here to set policy. That is why I want to throw this out to you and get the pros and cons on it. Thank you.
Assemblywoman McClain:
I know we looked at the language for the city and county ballot question. Is this pretty much written in the same way? It kind of clones it other than listing these people?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Yes, it is, Ms. McClain.
Assemblywoman McClain:
If you took out that listing of people’s names, then the statewide ballot questions would be in conformance with local, city, and county.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Yes, it would be.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any other questions from the Committee for Mr. Gustavson? [There were none.]
David Schumann, Independent American Party:
[Introduced himself] I’m here to speak on behalf of the bill, although after reading the memo from the man from Sparks, maybe that could be amended. The main reason we’re for the bill is that currently the arguments for and against are written by an officer of the state. Sometimes when you read them, they don’t really get to the guts of exactly why you’re proposing something. We think if you allow the organizations that propose these issues, or that feel strongly about the issues, to write the arguments, you perhaps might bring some things to the attention of the people that the office of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, or whomever might not be so intent.
Frankly, until I saw that memo from the City of Sparks, I must say I was all in favor of the organizations being listed. Having done this across the mountains there, we were not bashful about having the names of our organizations, and much more, the organization and the name. If somebody is going to be intimidated by it, then I certainly don’t want to push that part of it. But I do believe the organizations or individuals need to be able to write these arguments rather than the Attorney General. Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any questions of Mr. Schumann? [There were none.]
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
[Introduced herself] I’m really happy that Don brought this bill forward, particularly because I feel it has worked so well on the local level. In 1990, I was a part of a ballot issue that was on the ballot, and because the Secretary of State was frankly so biased against us, the questions were written in such a way that both the “for” question and the “against” question were both in favor of the question. We ended up going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court forced the changing of the wording on the ballot. That was the only alternative that we had. This is a much better approach.
I found in working on one of these committees in Washoe County that they worked very well. I think it was nice to be on the side of the winning question in Washoe County, but I think one of the reasons that I felt we won was because we did a really good job in writing the question on the ballot and writing the issues, putting them in there. And as Mr. Mortenson mentioned earlier, that allows you to have Web sites and other things on there. I think this is very important. Mr. Heller has allowed, unlike past Secretaries of State, for some people to come in and have some hearings, open meetings, to find out people’s concerns on these issues. That was a real step in the right direction, but I think this next step up after the experiment on the local level is good.
I want to speak to this issue of the name of the person or organization on the ballot. I really did appreciate that memo from the City of Sparks, and although I certainly wouldn’t be concerned about putting my name on there, I’m kind of a controversial person. Some people might vote against a very good thing just because my name was associated with it, so there is a reason why we might not want to do it. There might just be prejudice because my organization or my name, in particular, might be on there. It would be a very good thing, and it should look to the merits.
[Ms. Hansen, continued] It might even lead, for particular people, to some amount of discrimination or persecution. What if it was somebody within the government that was really against something the government was pushing, and they wanted to write against it but they were fearful to have their name on there? If they did, they might become the subject of discrimination and persecution in the government. That isn’t impossible.
There was a period of time where I was physically attacked because of a political issue, and I had to have a bodyguard for a while. That’s not beyond thinking that that might not happen. Today I have my concealed weapon permit, instead. It might lead to some difficulties. I shouldn’t say it, but I really never carry, but I do have it at the request of my son. I went through the process. Now, I’ll have to start doing it so they’ll know I have it with me. In any case, I really appreciate this bill, because I think it’s a very good step, but I am a little concerned about putting the name on the ballot, because I don’t want something to lose just because my name might be on there as supporting it. Thank you.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Ms. Hansen, I note that the Secretary of State would still have, even in this bill, the opportunity to provide for clear, concise, and suitable for incorporated language, so they would still have some editorial prerogative here, hopefully not broad enough to stymie the language. It sounds like they can’t change that, but mischief can be done, as you and I both are well aware.
Janine Hansen:
My experience in Washoe County was that we submitted the information, and we also submitted a lot of documentation with it to show what we had said about that particular thing was accurate. The Washoe County Registrar did reject a couple of the things that we said in there, but I found the integrity of our issue was well maintained. He only rejected one or two little things that he felt there wasn’t enough documentation on. I hope, too, that the integrity would be maintained. I do think the Secretary of State would need some authority so that it would be grammatical and other things. There might be some problems with that. I hope it wouldn’t be abused. I think it’s kind of necessary in case there are some significant problems with some submission, although I anticipate that very well meaning people would get involved, and they’d do a very good job. That’s the experience that I’ve had. It’s a tremendous amount of work to do it. That’s my answer, Mr. Anderson.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any other questions from the Committee for Ms. Hansen? [There were none.]
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
[Introduced herself] I believe the points have been very well made on this issue, and we’ve had conversation about it before at the local level. The authority given to the Secretary of State that was just under discussion is essentially as Ms. McClain mentioned. This essentially clones the local authority. Those that are doing it at the present time, at least those I have experience with in Clark County, are handling it very well.
Because I think the points have been made, and the support has been made, and I very much appreciate Mr. Anderson’s comments earlier, I think those were very well taken. I would like to carry just one message to you, and that is that there have been many people since this has been initiated on the local level that have said how much it has helped them in evaluating ballot questions. I think that’s what you want to do. Expanding it to the state level would be very much appreciated. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any questions for Ms. Lusk? [There were none.] Thank you, Ms. Lusk. Mr. Lomax, I have you marked in as neutral and speaking on this bill.
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters:
[Introduced himself] Mr. Anderson brought up most of my comments. Remember, the selection of the people who form the committee is a very public process. They are selected by the commissioners at the commission meetings. The information is readily available to anyone who is really interested in finding out who they are. They can also call our office, and they do all the time, especially the news media, and ask who’s on the committee, and we tell them, because it’s all public. However, we simply publish under the arguments that, “This argument was prepared by the ballot question committee in accordance with NRS” whatever it is. That’s all we put in there. It seems to be a pretty reasonable way of doing it.
As far as your concerns about the editing, that last sentence in there, the one you were referring to, you’ve kind of gone through all the appeals processes and everything else, and now you have an agreed-upon argument. It truly is. That’s grammatical. We had a homeless person on one of the committees. Sometimes they need a little help in just getting their grammar straightened out, but that’s what we’re down to at that point in the game.
Nick Matteis, Laxalt Consulting, City of Sparks:
I had signed in opposition to A.B. 436 with respect to the memorandum issued by the City Clerk of Sparks. However, Mr. Anderson has addressed those issues, I will stand to answer any questions I possibly can. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any questions from the Committee? [There were none.] That is all I have to address A.B. 436. Is there anyone I missed who wants to speak either on behalf of or against A.B. 436? Seeing no one else, we’ll close the hearing on A.B. 436, and we will open the hearing on A.B. 541.
Assembly Bill 541: Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-166)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
[Introduced herself] I have for you a document (Exhibit I) that suggests a few cleanup amendments within the bill and also goes through and explains what the bill does. If I might, I’d like to walk through that first and then come back to the amendments if that’s acceptable to the Committee.
Section 1 is current language, but it simply picked up and relocated. Then a new subsection 2 was added to set up a scenario for individuals who may have exactly the same name when running for office. “David Parks v. David Parks” is an example. I still think that we need to add some language regarding “incumbent”, and I’ve suggested some in the amendment that we shall come back to.
Section 3 just makes it clear that if the Legislature places an alternative initiative on the ballot, it would be listed first. I’ve suggested an amendment to add to that section for your consideration as well.
Sections 5 and 10 deal with early voting. The intent is to shorten the time period for early voting and add more time for people to be able to register to vote. I shortened early voting by one week, but then increased the amount of time that people can register. I think that’s actually more important to the process than the early voting portion of it, but I’m not getting rid of the early voting portion, although I did shorten it.
Section 9, subsection 4 authorized someone other than a family member to sign a form allowing them to return a ballot. This issue came up from Frankie Sue Del Papa, our former Attorney General, who wound up having to get called out of state for a case, had already had her sample ballot, had signed it and had it sealed, and could not get back into the state of Nevada. She had her clerk attempt to deliver it to the election department, and they refused to accept it.
[Ms. Giunchigliani, continued] When I went back and looked at the language, I wasn’t sure. I could never remember any testimony as to why you only had a family member, because I do know that there had been arrangements that you could make. You could sign a verification document to allow someone else to deliver your ballot as long as it was signed, sealed, and so forth. This would try to comply with that kind of a circumstance, because it was a valid issue that was raised. I think you need to have the protections that are there, but if I’ve already requested the ballot, and I document that I’m allowing this person to drop it off, then I think that should be a safeguard that’s there, because the numbers are tracked, and the ballots are tracked. We can hear from the clerks if there’s some additional problem that maybe I did not see.
Section 13 just makes it clear that you do not report [expenditures of] $100 and under on your contribution forms. That is the current law, but as we discussed two evenings ago, a form was included in our documents that did not indicate “optional,” and this just makes it clear of what our intent was legislatively. You do not need to report under $100.
Section 14 clarifies the time period for being able to accept contributions before and after a special session. I requested that language right after our special session, because Scott Wasserman and I were talking, and I said, “You know what? The Governor could just say, ‘I’m going to be having one.’” You’re frozen from that time period, and they could choose a month later to actually have the special session, and you’re not permitted to be collecting any contributions, especially if you’re in the middle of a campaign. There was no open and beginning end for that section, so I decided it was prudent to put in language for us to consider, so when and if we ever get called into one again, it would be very clear when you could and could not accept contributions based on when the actual order was issued.
That’s basically the intent of the sections of the bill. I’ll go back now and address some of the suggested amendments. On page 2, Section 2, lines 12 and 13, I’m suggesting deleting the word “incumbent,” and instead state something to the effect that the opponent must designate their middle name. The incumbent’s name would have an asterisk placed next to it. I don’t think the word “incumbent” is necessarily favored. The intent is simply to designate between one person and the other. That’s a suggestion that I might offer to you to consider.
What we didn’t address was if they weren’t an incumbent. My suggestion is that they both must designate either their middle name or their middle initial. That way, at least the clerks didn’t have to get into flipping a coin or something along those lines. That’s for discussion purposes, but I was just trying to narrow that issue.
[Ms. Giunchigliani, continued] On the same sections, the language would then appear in some format if you decide to accept that or some variation thereof. In Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 they had to go through and pick up all the areas where we reference that.
The next one was regarding the initiative petition. Lucille [Lusk] kindly e-mailed me and made a suggestion, and I presented it to you (Exhibit I). I’m sure she’ll want to speak further to it. The sample ballot and ballot face will include a statement to read, “The following questions are alternative approaches to the same issue, and only one may be enacted into law. Please vote for only one.” It kind of gives a heads-up regarding the matter.
The third one would be a suggested amendment to Section 5, page 7. If the appearance begins on the second Friday, when I shortened the early voting, I think it came down to 4 days. I was not intending to do that. I wanted to do a week. I have to be reasonable despite my concerns regarding early voting, but I did think that it was important that we extend the time for people to be able to register to vote, and so that’s what I offset. That’s the calendar presented in the backup information for you to take a look at for consideration. If you choose to do something like that, then we would need to amend NRS 293.560, which is the voter registration section, so that we could give a little longer time for people to register to vote. That’s pretty much the synopsis of the legislation.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Thank you, Ms. Giunchigliani. I think we have some questions.
Assemblywoman McClain:
If you’re changing it to the second Friday preceding a primary or general election, are you going to put Sundays back in?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I know it’s hard to imagine that there can be two Bernard J. Anderson, Juniors, in existence, but there are. Given the fact that it would be quite possible to have a middle initial, especially if you have a last name that is fairly common, like Anderson or Smith or Jones or Brown or Giunchigliani, the chances of running into—I mean, Bernards are not exactly running all over the place. What are you going to do when that happens? The Thomas Paynes of the world and the Thomas Jeffersons of the world who run for public office are entitled to have their own name, even if it happens to be Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Payne.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Excellent point. For discussion purposes, if something like that were to happen, and I would have to say my husband, with a common name like Gary Gray, there were four Gary Grays at one time in Clark County. Three actually taught in the school district, and two lived in my Assembly district when I ran for office. I used to keep the other Gary Gray’s—it was Guy Gray’s son, number next to my phone, because usually we’d get the wrong phone number and I’d refer them to the correct person. Luckily, there was no initial. Maybe with the Bernard J., then maybe there’s a spelling out of the middle name. I don’t know, because in here it says you have to list their address, and I thought that was kind of strange. I wasn’t really sure why you would list the address of the person next to them. That’s something else for us to consider about changing. I don’t think that delineates much of anything. I’m open to ideas. I really didn’t think “incumbent” got to it, and we did not address what would happen if they were non-incumbents. I’m very open to what might be a proper way so that the clerks don’t get stuck having to try to deal with it. Maybe Larry [Lomax] might have some suggestions other than what I’ve put in here.
Assemblyman Anderson:
When you go to a nickname and an abbreviation of the surname, does “Bernie” get to be a nickname, or is “Bernie” a common abbreviation of Bernard? Who gets to make the determination as to whether it’s a nickname? You’re going to put the nickname in quotation marks I see, so I was a little confused there.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The nickname issue is current law, and I’m not sure how that is done. I might ask the clerks that. I know we had a couple people that actually changed their names to put them on the ballot in a certain way. Wasn’t it “God Almighty” or something like that we had one time? He legally changed his name to that, and so they had to place that [on the ballot]. That was about 15 years ago. It was strange. He didn’t win.
Maybe they might be able to talk about how someone would delineate or determine, or if there are regulations that could at least spell out what a nickname would be. I don’t go by “Christina.” I go by “Chris.” I understand what you’re saying. Maybe it’s based on the way you document your name first when you initially file, because they do ask us, “How do you wish your name to appear on the ballot?” There may need to be an additional delineation there for us to take a look at.
Assemblyman Anderson:
That’s been a new addition to the form within the last two election cycles. In earlier times, “How do you wish your name to appear on the ballot” was not one of the questions that we were asked. Of course, I’ve only been running for a while. You and I came together.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes, we did. We’re much younger now. Maybe the clerks might be able to explain how that is handled or if they’ve ever run across that for discussion purposes. Thank you very much for your attention.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I have a couple of questions. First, what is your thinking? Why do you want to limit early voting?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I have made no bones about it. I don’t believe in early voting. I’m very much a traditionalist. I think the people should vote on Election Day. I understand that it’s cheaper for the local governments to be able to do it. It really does come down to how many machines they have to have and how many sites and if they can save money in the long run. I appreciate that.
However, the same people who generally turn out for early voting are the same people that turn out on Election Day. You don’t increase your turnout of new voters that tend not to come into the poll. To me, it also increases the cost of our campaigning. If we’re ever going to get at a campaign finance reform other than just what you do for your disclosures and who you collect checks from, part of it comes down to who do you contact and who do you mail. You now have to do basically three different types of elections, or two different types of elections, during your campaign, because you have no idea who might go early vote. Then you have to increase your mail costs; you have to mail betting on the con that someone might go out. Then you have to go back and mail to individuals just in case they didn’t early vote. It really does increase the cost. Truthfully, that’s it. But I think even more importantly, why do we wait five weeks out to close voter registration? I think we should collapse the two to some extent. Even though I don’t support early voting, I understand that it does have a fiscal impact and makes it easier on the local governments, and I recognize that. Larry [Lomax] and I used to argue with Kathy before you came. I do think this is a reasonable compromise to take a look at, but I do believe the voter registration should be extended. One way to accomplish that is to shorten the length of time.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Thank you. I do have another question on special sessions. I’m a little confused on this, so if you could just go over this for me again. If the Governor calls a special session, let’s say he calls it a week from now. He can do that, right?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct. If we were out of session he could.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Under the current law, we would freeze from that point on? Is that how it is?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
You are frozen from that point on, correct.
Assemblyman McCleary:
So what you’re changing here, if I understand it correctly, is, let’s say he calls it a month from now. Then we have to stop 15 days before that period, and then 15 days after. That 15-day period also covers regular sessions, too?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Regular is 30 days.
Assemblyman McCleary:
You’re not changing that portion?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
No. For a special session—what happened is the Governor announced, actually, three weeks before he actually called the session that he was going to [call one]. Technically, by doing that, we probably were not supposed to collect any contributions up until that time. In looking at the statute, it was kind of vague and not spoken to, so I felt rather than putting anybody in the circumstance of being accused of taking money prior to or after, we should put a time specification in and clarify that it’s upon the actual call of the session. That’s all that’s attempting to do.
Assemblyman McCleary:
If you’re going to change the language for the special, you don’t think that we should just apply that to the regular session as well?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I thought about that, but I think 30 days is more than reasonable. You need a cooling-down period after session. You think about how many hundreds of lobbyists are up here right now. I just think that we don’t even need to be raising money right afterwards, because we don’t even announce for another eight months. There are some who choose to start fundraising, or would, as soon as we got home, and I just think you need kind of a breathing time. Thirty days seemed responsible before and after.
Assemblywoman Weber:
Just as a comical note, I was looking at the first part of your amendment regarding putting an asterisk versus “incumbent”, and I thought to myself, and I know some of the Committee members will come to me afterwards to say, “This will really work with the randomization of the alphabet as well.”
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any other questions from the Committee? I just might add, just because I can and I have the mike, that I like shortening the time period for early voting and increasing the registration, because I can’t tell you how many people I met after early voting started that said to me had they met me sooner, they would have voted for me, but they had already made up their mind with little or no information. So I think it’s important. There’s an aspect here as far as the voters are concerned.
Assemblywoman McClain:
There’s another side of that coin. I can’t tell you how many people, I’d knock on their door, and they would say, “I already voted for you,” and I’d say, “Thank you.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
They do say that, but you never know. We’ve all had that happen.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I just want to say that I think early voting is good. I think the world has changed drastically since I was a kid, and Americans work many more hours than they did 40 years ago. I think early voting is a good thing. Thank you.
Assemblyman Beers:
I’ll get one last kick in on the dead horse here. I early voted this weekend.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I did mine by mail, and thank you, Larry [Lomax], because I neglected to sign my envelope and he had to send it back up to me.
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
[Introduced herself] I really like many portions of this bill, and I want to talk about some of those and some of the reasons for that. I am very much concerned about the difficulties that early voting brings for lots of volunteer organizations like mine, particularly if you look at the fact that you have to get information out from the primary, between the primary and the general election. We put out 75,000 32-page voter guides that have information on the candidates. It has their questionnaires and other things in it. You have to do all that bookwork in a very short period of time. When you have to rely on things like bulk mail, which many of you do, during an election time, it makes it even more difficult the farther out that early voting time is. It makes it very difficult for volunteer organizations or even campaigns to be able to get those things out in a timely manner.
I think it also, as Ms. Giunchigliani said, it really increases the cost of running for office. It makes it much more difficult for non-incumbents or minor parties and everybody to be able to participate, because you really have to have two peaks. You have to get everything out before they start early voting, and then you have to continue campaigning. I’ll tell you one thing it does. As you go out campaigning, you find all these people have voted, and you say, “What in the world am I doing? Why am I out here working?” It discourages, to a great degree, additional participation for candidates, at least it seemed to me, to have all of those people that had voted early.
One of the things I found as I was a candidate and was helping our other 50 candidates this time was that much of the free media that’s available—television shows, information in the newspaper, radio interviews—they all come, many of them, after early voting has been going on. A lot of them don’t come until just the weekend before the election. Major debates that take place don’t come in time for early voting, so the opportunity for the voter to be fully informed is very limited when they start voting at early voting time. They miss all of that information. Many people don’t even get interested until the last minute, and so if they run over and early vote, then all of that information that was available to them is not then available.
One of the things that was improved this time was so much information available on Internet sites, which isn’t timed according to that. All of the television and radio and newspaper things are timed in such a way that they really don’t complement early voting whatsoever.
I’m in favor of increased registration time. I would think that a lot of people don’t get interested until later on. The later it goes, the more they get interested. That would increase the numbers of people that would actually participate in allowing for increased registration time for them. We get a lot of interest as we go out and campaign, and a lot of those people can’t even sign up to register to vote, because it’s too late. It would be nice to get them when they’re interested, and then maybe next time know they would be more interested and want people to participate in the process. It allows for that.
I just wanted to mention I’m very much in favor of shortening early voting. I’m also in favor of this portion that doesn’t require you to report expenses under $100. I’m not in favor of reporting any of the expenses, and you all know that, because I don’t think it improves the process or any of the other things. Anything that improves that process I’m in favor of, and I think that certainly is a great improvement. I was thinking about it the other day. The reason that most people vote for you is because they vote for you or they give you money because they believe in what you stand for, or they really like you as a person. I don’t think it has to do with them buying your vote. The less we can focus on that the better off we are. I’m in favor, particularly, of those portions of the bill. Thank you.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
[Introduced herself] Much of what has already been said reflects our point of view. We want to strongly support any effort to reduce early voting to a shorter time, closer to the actual Election Day, for the reasons stated. I would state also that the necessity to run essentially a dual campaign increases the cost of campaigning for candidates. For anyone who has a ballot question they’re dealing with, it in many ways reduces citizen participation because of the increased costs. We do understand the benefit it serves in terms of efficiency for the election departments, but we believe that the actual disruption and reduction in citizen participation overcomes that.
I do want to state support for your efforts to clear up the duplicate name situation. That’s nonsense to be wasting time on that, and I’m not sure the bill has found the solution to do it. I did wonder about the use of the term “incumbent,” that not everyone would want to necessarily have that term used. I’m not sure an asterisk says anything to anybody, but perhaps that would be an area where the clerks could be empowered to find some distinction, whether it be an initial or a full name or whatever it would require to be able to find a distinction between them.
I did want to go to a couple of points in the bill that I have some concerns about. One is on page 6, and several [other] places in the bill, where it allows someone else to return an absentee ballot. We have some concerns about that opening up to potential mischief with organizations that might do some intimidation action. I believe that’s why it was limited to family members in the first place, and I would ask you to seriously consider the potential impact of that. Yes, occasionally there is someone who would be benefited by having someone else return, but the potential for mischief may be greater than the potential benefit there.
[Ms. Lusk, continued] As Ms. Giunchigliani kindly mentioned, I had communicated with her about page 5 with regard to if there is an initiative petition question, and the Legislature identifies an alternative to that, whether the legislative alternative should always appear first. Our instinct is quite naturally that the citizen initiative should probably appear first. If it were very clear on the ballot that the two were alternatives to each other, so people thought as if Ms. Giunchigliani and Mr. Conklin were running against each other, people would know they could only vote for one of you. The same should be true with alternative questions. People should understand that they could only vote for one of those questions. If it were labeled very clearly, and if each were labeled as the initiative alternative or the legislative alternative, I believe that would be highly beneficial. I do not believe it’s entirely clear at this time when those things do occur. People sometimes vote for both. They’re for medical malpractice reform, so they vote for both. That serves no purpose. The purpose is served by them looking carefully at the differences in the two and saying, “I like this one better.” Thank you.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any questions from the Committee for Ms. Lusk? [There were none.]
Stephanie Garcia-Vause, City of Henderson:
[Introduced herself] We’re in support of most of the provisions of the bill with the exception of the provisions regarding early voting. Early voting in the city of Henderson accounts for a high percentage of our voter turnout. In the 2001 municipal election, we had an early voting turnout of 3,100 people, accounting for 38.98 percent of our registered voters. As of April 1, which was Tuesday, we had 5,000 voters already who came out during early voting. Because of the varied schedules of our registered voters, we feel it’s important to have as many opportunities as possible for our voters to turn out. We rely on early voting to bring the people out to vote.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Thank you, Ms. Garcia-Vause. I have two questions for you. The first question is, could you give me those numbers again, the very first numbers?
Stephanie Garcia-Vause:
Sure. In the 2001 municipal election, and these were numbers from our city clerk, we had early voting turnout of 3,183 people, which accounted for 38.98 percent of registered voters. That was from our city clerk, and it looked awfully low to me.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Let me tell you what this suggests. This is basically 40 percent. That means you only have about 7,000 registered voters in the entire city of Henderson. That sounds awfully fishy to me.
Stephanie Garcia-Vause:
It sounds very low to me, too. I read that as well. I was corrected. It was the percentage of voters.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
That’s basically 38.9 percent of those who voted in the election.
Stephanie Garcia-Vause:
Correct.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
So you have 7,500 people who voted in the entire election. The second question is since early voting has come about, have you seen a shift in the number of people who actually vote in an election as a percentage of those eligible to vote?
Stephanie Garcia-Vause:
I don’t have the answer to that question for you.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
The number of people who turn out and early vote is not really the suspect number here. The suspect number is does early vote actually increase the number of people voting? That’s why I’m asking that question.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Stephanie, did they take any position regarding maybe extending the amount of time of registering people to vote, or was that even discussed? It wasn’t out until I had my amendments, though. It would be kind of difficult for you.
Stephanie Garcia-Vause:
No, they did not. We appreciate that you changed the four days to seven days.
Assemblyman McCleary:
To Madam Chair. On the asterisk, does that only apply if there are two names that are the same?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes. The intent for the asterisk was in lieu of “incumbent.” So if you had an incumbent and another person or persons filed then, I didn’t think the word “incumbent” was appropriate, so I suggested an asterisk. That’s only if the names are all the same and you had an incumbent and a new person.
Assemblyman McCleary:
We used to have it that way, until recently, and somewhere it changed. I didn’t like that. I never did like that.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
This would solely be when you had an identical situation. Ms. Weber will speak to an idea she’s had that might be better than the asterisk.
Assemblywoman McClain:
One of the things you might think about is that no two people are going to be there at the exact same second to file. Maybe the first guy that files gets the name that they pick, and the second person that comes in with that exact same name automatically gets no middle name between the first and last name or some identifier that’s different from the other guy.
If I could follow up with one other thing, I personally love early voting, as you can tell. I disagree that it hasn’t helped turnout. I think it has, because if you look over the years how voter turnout has consistently been going downhill, just by having early voting, at least we’re holding our own these days, and it’s actually going up a little bit. It’s going to take a while to get people used to it, but I think it’s absolutely, totally, incredibly necessary in areas like Las Vegas and Clark County. People are on different schedules, and a lot of them don’t even think about voting until the last minute, but early voting gets publicized a lot, so it gets a lot of people out and gets them thinking about it. I don’t think it hurts the campaign one bit. I’m all for it.
Assemblywoman Weber:
Maybe Mr. Lomax will speak to the issue regarding the “incumbent” versus some other methodology, but maybe we could do something as simple as just bold the name.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Ms. Weber, I think Mr. Lomax is going to speak next, so if you want to hold that question for him.
Assemblyman Beers:
I was going to follow up on Assemblywoman McClain’s talk about first come, first serve. I can envision hordes of Bob Beerses and Kathy McClains camping out at Larry Lomax’s front door starting a week before filing if we put that into law.
Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters:
[Introduced himself] I’m very eager to get up here. As far as the names, I do want to point out one thing that I think you missed a little bit on this, and I’m relating specifically to the Parks versus Parks incident. You’ve been addressing all your problems with early voting. You’ll have a big campaign problem if you’ve got an opponent out there with the identical name. In Parks versus Parks, it became very clear that the—I’m going to call him the phony Parks, the guy who filed second—as it turned out, later on we found out he did have a middle name, but he swore he did not. And he insisted his name go on the ballot the way the other David Parks had his name, because he knew that David Parks already had printed up all of his signs and his campaign literature. There is something to be said for first come, first serve, so to speak. It isn’t only differentiating them on the ballot face itself; there is all this campaigning going on out there, too. The voters have to have some way to differentiate the two out there. I don’t have any great ideas, either, but the first come, first serve is not a bad one at all. It would have worked in this case. We could have at least forced the second one to — even if there is no middle initial or whatever, but we could have compelled him to do something differently.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I can appreciate the observation when I heard the first come, first served. My reaction was somewhat similar to Mr. Beers’. Here you have an incumbent who has put a good deal of time into developing a particular name identification. Yet when the filing time came, I traditionally wait to file relatively late, it’s just the way I am. So now all of a sudden, I’m going to have to be down there on the very first day to protect my name. That seems a little strange. In a case where somebody was looking to do mischief, it seems to me that by being there first, because people have jobs and some people do not, you would open that opportunity up, and you wouldn’t know that somebody was about to do mischief to you if that was their intent, and you both had the same name. The Parks thing clearly shows somebody’s intent. Maybe those are the rare exceptions. Those of us who have common surnames would fall into different categories.
Larry Lomax:
One suggestion might be that if a person is an incumbent, so to speak, he gets automatic first. That doesn’t seem all that unfair. He or she has built up the recognition, so some person can’t just file and use an incumbent’s name if they have stuck with a common name throughout their tenure.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Lomax, it’s almost like trademarking something.
Larry Lomax:
I haven’t been at this for long, but I’ve learned there are a lot of devious people out there looking for ways to beat the system. This was one of them.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any questions relating to this particular topic for Mr. Lomax? Otherwise, I’m going to let him continue in his testimony. Please continue.
Larry Lomax:
Thank you. Addressing early voting, two sessions ago, in 1999, this Committee addressed either eliminating early voting or shortening early voting, and very wisely, in my opinion, elected to leave it the same as it was. Since that Committee made that decision, over 475,000 people in Clark County alone, that’s essentially half a million people, have chosen to vote early in the elections that have followed. There is no question that early voting is the most successful program in Clark County, bar everything our government does down there. It is universally appreciated by the voters. We do not receive a single complaint about early voting. The voters love it. They turn out. We lead the nation. The rest of the country is moving towards what Clark County does. In the election world, everyone knows what Clark County does. We have visitors from other counties every time we conduct early voting, because we are so successful. As I go through this, I will explain why we are successful.
As to the argument that we need to extend the registration period, that can be addressed without impacting early voting at all. I’ll get to that in a bit.
Let me brief you quickly on just what’s going on in Clark County. It appears we have stabilized at turnout. We got 44 percent turnout during early voting, 44 [percent] turnout on Election Day, plus or minus a percentage point. The rest voted absentee. This has held true in 2000 and 2002. I’m talking about the big elections. With 44 percent of the voters voting early—and I would ask you, somewhere in that folder all of you have in front of you, you have this package, and it’s got some data on it I’m going to be referring to (Exhibit J). The last two pages in that are the early voting turnouts on a daily basis in 2000 and 2002. As we go through elections, we’ll compare presidential elections, and we’ll compare gubernatorial elections, because you’ve got to compare one against the other, because the turnouts are different based on voter interest, which is primarily driven by the candidates.
[Mr. Lomax, continued] When I originally was thinking we were coming here addressing reducing early voting to four days, that would have meant 100,000 people had voted prior to the 4-day period in 2000. If you reduce it to 7 days or cut it in half, you’ll see over 60,000 people had voted in that first week. This is an enormous number of people to deal with. If you take away half of early voting or 10 days of early voting or you take away any of it, you displace those people who have voted early and traditionally do so. You will find when you go talk to your voters, your voters are now saying, “My polling place is Meadows Mall,” if you’re in Clark County. “My polling place is Boulevard Mall.” Twenty-five percent of the people who live in Commission District E voted the Boulevard Mall, period. That’s their polling place, and that’s how they talk about it. We have improved it now where they talk about their polling place as the Vons of Village Center or wherever, but they identify those early polling locations as their polling places. If you start eliminating early voting days, you’re eliminating early voting places, and you’re eliminating a significant number of polling places.
My sites are at capacity already. If you look at the statistics on the last sheet in there, you’ll see as we work our way through the early voting period more and more people are showing up, especially those last four days, but during that last week. I’m going to have to explain early voting sites to you a little bit, because being a candidate, you can’t hang around them all day, because you’re not allowed out there. If you come to our early voting sites in that last week, especially the last four days, you will find that the average voter is waiting 20 to 30 minutes in line just waiting for their turn to vote. If you go on the last day, and the last day we’re at full capacity, every site is processing voters as fast as we can do it, and you’ll see we do over 20,000 on that day alone, I can’t suck up any more voters. The voters you displace in that first week, they’re not going to be able to go vote in the second week. There’s no place for them to vote.
If you think I have the resources to open more sites, certainly we will address that, but I’m using all the county’s trained personnel. By that, our early voting is very technical. We line up our computer IT people to set up all these sites. Every site we set up in the morning and we take home at night. I’ve used them. As you start shortening early voting, the few temps we do hire, it just becomes that more difficult if any of you are familiar with hiring temporary employees — they’ll hire one for 4 days or 7 days as opposed to 2 weeks or 3 weeks or whatever.
If you shorten early voting, what you will do is you will create longer lines, and that is essentially what you will be doing the early voting time, and then, conversely, on Election Day you will create more lines, and we’ll get to that in just a minute.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Lomax, can I stop you there for a second? I have a curious question. During the primary—let’s just use the primary election as an example last year—at the Boulevard Mall, how many stations do you have set up on a given day? Twenty? Twenty-five?
Larry Lomax:
It doesn’t change. At the Boulevard Mall, there’s somewhere around 20 or 25.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Let’s just say 20. You maybe have 3 or 4 people working there, right? Election volunteers?
Larry Lomax:
I have a lot more than 3 or 4.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
At any given moment you have 3 or 4.
Larry Lomax?
At any given moment? No, I probably have 10 to 15.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
We’ll just say 10 to 15. That’s fine. How long does the average voter take to vote in those stations? Those are all touch-screen. I know, because I voted there.
Larry Lomax:
How long a voter takes to vote depends entirely on the ballot you’ve thrown at them. In the 2002 general election, the voters had to make 66 different choices in Clark County, plus or minus a few depending on their district, and they took 7 to 12 minutes.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
So on the average, let’s say 10 minutes?
Larry Lomax:
Well, that wouldn’t be fair, either. A primary election probably takes them 5 minutes or less. It all depends on the election and what’s on the ballot.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
My reason for asking this is you had mentioned the word “capacity,” that you’re at “capacity.” When I went there, I was the only one there from the time I got there, until the time I finished, until the time I went and did my shopping and came back by. It’s very convenient, and I like early voting. I’m concerned that it might be a little too long for a variety of reasons. If I start totaling up the number of minutes times the number of manpower and the number of machines versus the number of people that flow through there in a given day, I daresay we’re not at capacity.
Larry Lomax:
If I said “capacity” at total, I misspoke. We are near capacity in the second week, and we are at capacity, essentially. The last day we are at full capacity, the last four days. I’m not talking about a primary election. I’m talking about a general election, a busy election.
Assemblyman Anderson:
When you talked about your early voting percentages, did you include your absentee voters as part of the early voting? Are they numbered separately?
Larry Lomax:
Forty-four percent of the voters who vote vote early. Twelve percent essentially vote absentee, so that’s 56 percent. Forty-four percent vote on Election Day.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Have you done an analysis to see of the percentage of those voters who are absentee voters, if they are historically absentee voters? My father worked on the railroad, and was always an absentee voter, a mail-in voter. That was the way he preferred to vote. I’m kind of curious as to truck drivers and people who often travel around a great deal.
Larry Lomax:
We do have people who traditionally vote by mail, and we do have them identified, and send them every year a reminder that they’re going to have to reapply to get mail ballots so they won’t forget.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Has that number remained fairly consistent over the last 10 years?
Larry Lomax:
No. It’s kind of hard to say, because, first of all, when you redistricted two years ago, you created a lot of mail-only precincts, and all of those people are now compelled to vote by mail, which really skews the statistics in that area.
In addition to not being able to add a lot of locations, right now we cover 65 different parts of the county where there are early voting sites. We have seven teams that travel around to different locations, primarily supermarkets, libraries, and grocery stores. We have 7 permanent sites in the malls. Those locations are selected by an early voting advisory board consisting of primarily the parties, minority groups, and just about anybody we find who’s really interested. What we try to do is distribute them around the valley so that everyone has an equal access to early voting. No one has ever come to us and said, “You have too many sites.” We have lots of complaints that we’re not in enough places. People constantly want us to go to more areas to provide more opportunities. You cut the days in half, you cut down by 50 percent our opportunity to go out into the neighborhood and reach out to voters.
Finally, the more you compress early voting, the more you jeopardize my opportunity to get into these locations. We don’t pay anybody a penny to be at any of these sites. We have to negotiate with the malls to convince them that it’s a public service, that we’re going to bring them some customers, and that we won’t be too disruptive. As you approach the end of early voting and you look at the numbers on that sheet, the lines begin to grow. As I said, it’s standard on the last four days to have lines approaching a half hour. On the last day, if you went to Meadows Mall or Boulevard Mall or Galleria Mall on the last day, the lines were an hour long, I would guess almost a quarter of a mile long, stretching almost the entire length of the mall. We had to have all sorts of extra people in there. Now, the malls put up with that for that one day, but they’re not going to tolerate us just cramming more and more people and having those kinds of lines throughout. So as you compress early voting, you jeopardize our opportunity, in my opinion, to get access to our facilities.
[Mr. Lomax, continued] I was going to talk quite a bit about the argument that early voting is expensive. You alluded to it a bit. The Chairwoman admitted that early voting, in reality, does save us quite a bit of money. We prepared a study, and Jane Ann Morrison wrote an article in the RJ [Las Vegas Review‑Journal] last November about what early voting costs. It’s very straightforward. All the people that vote early don’t have to vote on Election Day. If you cut out, for instance, 10 days of early voting, and that was 100,000 voters, that’s 100,000 voters that I either have to suck up during the remaining time of early voting, and I can’t do that, or they’re going to have to vote on Election Day.
We have a very good formula for how many voting machines we need, and it works very well. You take the projected turnout at a polling place, and for every 100 voters, you need one voting machine. That works, and that’s what is required. One hundred thousand voters would be 1,000 voting machines. One thousand voting machines, $4 million. As the Chairwoman admitted, that’s the advantage of early voting. Our cost for early voting for the full, complete full-blown program in 2002 was $280,000. If you compare that to an initial investment of $4 million for voting machines, we come out way ahead. I’m just talking finances.
[Mr. Lomax, continued] How many voting machines do we have right now? All of you were candidates in 2002, I know that, and all of you were waiting at 7:00 for the results to come out to find out how you did. If you look back and remember, you didn’t get any results at 7:00. With 133,000 people having voted early, we had to keep the polls open until 8:00 to deal with the lines that we have out there. I’m sure you all remember that, because we were finally able to release the first results from early voting an hour late, and that was because of lines at about half of our polling places. That’s with every voting machine I currently own out in the field for the voters to use, and 130,000 of them, half the voters who voted, out of the way already. You don’t want to do away with early voting or shorten it. It is going to cause more machines, and it is going to cause lines.
I’d like to talk a little bit about turnout, because people seem to question whether or not early voting increases turnout. Jon Ralston, specifically, has been somewhat vocal about this. You can’t prove anything as far as turnout, because you never know what would have happened if we had done it another way. We only have one election, and that’s the way we did it. If you would look at this chart right here in the front (Exhibit J), I think I can make a pretty good case anyway. Since we’ve gotten heavily into early voting in Clark County, turnout is increasing. If you look on the left-hand chart, that’s comparing the 1996 with the 2000 race. This is the percent of registered voters who voted, and you can see with early voting, that’s when early voting was relatively in its infancy in 1996. Seventeen percent of those people who voted, voted early. That’s about 46,000. By 2000, it was 44 percent, which was 7,000. You can see that the overall turnout went from 61 percent to 69 percent. That’s a pretty significant increase.
If you look at the gubernatorial race, the difference between 1998 and 2002, early voting had grown a bit, but you see Clark County did improve. We went from 53 to 57 percent. You can see a huge increase down there in the numbers of early voters.
On the next page, it has a comparative voter turnout of the neighboring western states. On the left-hand side, poor old Nevada, we’re always getting beat up because nobody shows up to vote. Well, if you look at 1996, I have the surrounding states listed there, and that’s the percentage of people who showed up in 1996 in Nevada as well as all the surrounding states. If you look at 2000, you’ll see the same data. Other than Arizona, you can see we did exceedingly well in comparison to the other states, and there has to be some reason for that. My contention is it’s because we make voting convenient and easy for the voters.
[Mr. Lomax, continued] If you look on the right-hand chart, that chart is the same election, but that’s computed on what’s called a voting age population. That’s where Nevada truly does not do well. Even in voting age population, you can see we improved more than any other state on that list. Voting age population means the number of people who are 18 years and older in your state. That doesn’t mean they were even eligible to register, but that’s how old they were. Then you take the number of people who voted.
Our problem in Nevada is getting people to register to vote. Once we get them to register to vote, we do pretty well. If you’d please turn to the next page, this long chart right here. Here’s Nevada, always getting beaten up. Well, we’ve managed to get Nevada up to 18th in the country, if you compute it on the percent of registered voters. That’s really not that bad considering every demographic predictor would indicate that we’re going to be way down there at the bottom. I would suggest to you that the problem we have is getting people to register. Once I get them registered, this early voting program is getting them out to vote. It’s getting them out to vote better than the other states, and it’s why the other states are implementing our program.
That’s looking, what I consider to be, anyway, as objectively as I can with the data. I also would offer subjectively that I have spent hundreds of hours at early voting sites, and the voters love it. They just all love it. If you’re having a down day, like last Tuesday night, I can go out Wednesday to early voting sites and all you get is compliments. They just absolutely love it. The team leaders who work the sites tell me the same thing. Moreover, in a time when few people work close to home, that’s where your polling place is on Election Day. When the valley is becoming more and more congested, and it’s harder to get across the valley to get home to vote on Election Day, it defies common sense to argue that making voting more convenient is somehow bad. About the only person that does that is Jon Ralston.
As to lengthening the time for people to register, you don’t have to do anything to early voting to do that. Let me talk to you quickly about registration. I get 1,500 voter registration applications a week, week after week after week. They just come in. That’s the number, plus or minus a couple hundred. As you start to approach an election—and I’m talking about the big elections—they start to build. It will build to 3,000, 4,000, 6,000 a week. We’re talking about approaching that last week of registration. The last week of registration, I’ll get 20,000 registration forms, and the last day of registration, which is a Saturday, and we’re at all the malls, we’ll get 10,000 to 15,000 registration forms on that day. That isn’t a coincidence. That’s because they know it’s the last day of registration. If you move it out a week, all you’re going to do is shift that pattern one week further to the right. I can assure you of that, but there are still things we can do to help the voters. Keep the last day to register in the manner in which they now do it right where it is. People can simply change the rules so that they come to our office and register from that point on. No problem. I can enter it directly into the computer, and I can hand them a sample ballot. Not an issue. I’ll give you two weeks. If you want to extend the registration period for two weeks, I have no problem with that. Just have them come into our office, we’ll enter them into our system and give them a sample ballot. The big challenge is getting them that sample ballot, and we have those in our office. That’s not really an issue.
Assemblywoman Weber:
Usually I look for the billboards that talk about the early voting, which seemed to be successful, somewhere in that campaign. Does it also state on those billboards, and I don’t remember when they go up, does it state what the last date to register is as a prompt to early voting?
Larry Lomax:
Speaking for Clark County, what we do is sign a contract with the billboard people. We rent it for three months, and the first month that billboard is a close of registration billboard. That’s all that is on the billboard. It says, “This is your last month to register,” and tells you what the last day is. That’s the first month. After that, we use it as an early voting billboard.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Lomax, as a follow-up to that, what is your advertising budget for early voting?
Larry Lomax:
When I got here it was $350,000. I’d say we now spend somewhere in the vicinity of $50,000.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
That’s $50,000 down from $350,000.
Larry Lomax:
We have worked very hard with the Nevada Broadcaster’s Association. When I got here, they were paying radio stations for time just like any business would. We have made ourselves a public service, and we get those rates, a five for one rate. Anderson Dairy, I don’t know if you ever look at your milk carton, they’ll put the stuff on there for free, and they put early voting dates on that. We work with the utility companies, Sprint, Nevada Power, Nevada Water Authority, all those people in their bills now put early voting information in there. The supermarkets are putting it in their flyers. You’re putting a lot of that information out now for us, too. What we have found is we can get an awful lot of free advertising. It hurts me always to spend your money to tell you to go vote. That’s always a difficult issue. We don’t spend that much, all things considered. I get critiqued more for not spending enough on advertising than spending too much.
Assemblyman Grady:
Mr. Lomax, can you touch on your mobile teams and how you decide where they are going to be when?
Larry Lomax:
What we do in the Election Department—in fact, I have a lady who is in charge of early voting—we draft what looks to us like a good schedule so that every day we are essentially in Clark County spread out throughout the county or the valley. No matter where you live, you’d have a pretty good shot at getting to us. We lay out kind of this draft schedule. Then we have an early voting committee that consists of probably about 20 people, as I said, from the party, from minority groups, et cetera. We ask those people to come in, and then we go over our schedule with them and they offer suggestions, improvements, “No, don’t go there. I’ve got a better idea.” Anyway, using that committee process, we try to come up with the best schedule we can. What we want to be absolutely sure of is after the election no one can come at us and say, “You influenced the outcome of the election by the sites you chose.” Some of our sites we go to because we’ll get a high turnout. Sun City, for instance. You’re going to get a lot of voters there. Some of the sites we go to, like the Cambridge Community Center, a place like that, we’re not going to get a high turnout, but we’re serving a different segment of the population. That’s how we do it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Larry, I appreciate your documentation. I know you’re quite fervently in support, and I’m just as rabidly opposed. However, I thought I tried to bring a compromise, which was to shorten the length of time, which actually gives you —you can do everything you currently do and just simply compress it. I understand the concern. However, I don’t think early voting—when it was sold to us, it was to increase turnout. And I’ll give you numbers next week that show that it does not increase the turnout.
[Ms. Giunchigliani, continued] I think the real issue is that this should not be a matter of convenience for the local governments, and I think that’s part of what early voting is. I understand that. However, I think we need to do more to make sure that we’re reaching new people. I don’t see the registration idea working. When we’re going door to door, people say, “I didn’t know voter registration was going to close.” They’re not going to take the time to drive to the Election Department and go get registered to vote. That doesn’t really solve the problem as far as increasing.
What I have seen happen is over the years, because we’ve had to target our money, because you want to have some sense to what you’re using your campaign funds for, you target your money now to only those that are inveterate voters. We’re not creating new voters of those that are registered. We’re not driving them out to the polls. That’s just a philosophical thing that we have to wrestle with as we deal with the policy of how to properly campaign, how to reach as many people as possible. Early voting assists. We support it because labor could organize, and this group organizes, and I applaud that. We’re a 24-hour town. However, that does not change under this scenario. It just simply says, “Let’s be reasonable about the amount of time,” and actually go out and register people a little bit longer. I don’t think having them come down to the Election Department is going to do that.
The Committee will take this up next week, and we’ll continue to debate that matter. They have another Judiciary subcommittee that needs to use the room, so we’re going to have to conclude this.
Vice Chairman Conklin:
Are there any additional questions? [There were none.] We’re going to have to close the hearing on A.B. 541.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Tuesday we have quite a few bills. We’ll try to do some work session. Thursday we will solely devote to work session, so we should be able to move everything and process everything out. Don’t worry about bills that are interim committees. They’re exempted. That’s why I rolled the ones from next week that I originally posted, so that we could hear all of the bills that we received.
Thank you very much for your attention this evening.
[The meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kelly Fisher
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: