MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-Second Session

May 8, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 5:13 p.m., on Thursday, May 8, 2003.  Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr. Marcus Conklin, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Chad Christensen

Mr. Tom Grady

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Bob McCleary

Ms. Peggy Pierce

Ms. Valerie Weber

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst

Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Stacy Jennings, Executive Director, Nevada Commission on Ethics

Janine Hansen, Resident, Nevada Eagle Forum

Richard Siegel, President, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU)

Dean Heller, Nevada Secretary of State

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State of Nevada

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

[Roll called]  Since we have a quorum, let’s go to our work session document (Exhibit C).  The first measure is A.B. 542.  It’s Tab A.  Michelle, do you want to briefly walk us through it?

 

Assembly Bill 542:  Makes various changes relating to operation of Legislature and Legislative Counsel Bureau. (BDR 17-1024)

 

Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst:

A.B. 542 was heard in Committee on April 15, and it was also discussed last week on April 29 during a work session.  Under Tab A is the list of amendment proposals that Lorne Malkiewich prepared.  In addition, under Tab A are copies of all of the tables he and I had put together for the Committee concerning bill draft requests, limits, how many had been used, and how many became law.  I have also handed out copies of the Sunset Review Report (Exhibit D) for your consideration.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

What is the appetite of the Committee?  We could use this bill to do sunsets, or we could actually report a separate bill and try to deal with it in a more focused manner.  We heard this originally on April 15 and 29.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I personally would like to take a look at the sunsets.  I’d like to see sunsets on just about everything here.  I don’t know that they’d all be the same, and I don’t know that we have to have them all the same.  I don’t know if this is the right vehicle.  I’ll leave that to others.  But I’d like to see the sunsets reviewed and brought into play so that maybe we can save some budgetary dollars and give us an opportunity to maybe end some committees that aren’t as useful as they once were and possibly bring in others that are more in line with the times and the needs of our constituents.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you.  Since we can still do a Committee introduction request, we’ll take up that item as a separate item, because they are sacred cows everywhere.  We also have several committees that they’re requesting to create this session, so maybe we can take one off and put a new one in, if that’s the case, so we’re not just adding to a list of standing committees.  Maybe we’ll take that up next week.  I would accept a motion to amend and do pass with the deletions that are noted and the additional language regarding fiscal notes, as well as taking out the language regarding the Silver Haired Committee so that they are not impacted.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 542.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON VOTING NO.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The second item is A.C.R. 10.

 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 10:  Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of operations of Public Employees’ Benefits Program. (BDR R-1111)

 

Michelle Van Geel:

A.C.R. 10 was heard in Committee on April 15.  It would conduct an interim study of the operations of the Public Employees Benefit Program.  There are three amendments under Tab B.  The first would add private sector representation to the committee and make various other changes; the second would specify the makeup of the committee; and the third would add additional items to the study.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

If you’ll note, we had some recommendations from Mr. Grady, myself, and, I think, from Woody Thorne.  They should all be included in this draft.  We added some private sector individuals.  Again, it will be a small interim committee of legislators, but we felt technical people should be more included.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I see Mr. Grady’s suggestion [to make up the committee consisting of a] retired public employee, local government, labor, medical health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and the state employee who is neither an agency nor department head.  I hate to flip a coin between Association of Counties and League of Cities, because what happens to the hospital groups and the teachers’ associations who are not part of either League of Cities or the Associations of Counties who might fall into that category of employee?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I would point out that we didn’t merge all three of these recommended amendments.  Mr. Anderson is speaking about the one behind Tab B that’s on the third page.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

My idea was not so much what group would be in there, to broaden it out so these groups would have a chance to be in there since they are all involved.  I think the original amendment said that there would be 7 appointees, 3 of whom would represent public employee organizations.  I would be happy with that.  It was modeled after the committee that worked with Government Affairs.  The technical people were involved with this to assist the legislators.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani

Thank you.  If you go to the very first page, suggested amendment number 10, the first change would say, “The Legislative Commission shall designate a Chairman who shall appoint an advisory committee of at least seven members, who are not legislators, at least three of whom represent public employee organizations, two of whom represent public employers, and two members from the private sector.”

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Is this the one with your name at the upper right-hand corner?

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Yes.  Then Mr. Grady’s suggestion is—Tom, is yours to add any of these particular groups to that advisory committee?

 

Assemblyman Grady:

Any group.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

My concern is that the highest number of complaints that I’ve heard from in this particular area are retired public employees and other state employees, or other small government employees, who are not protected by RPEN [Retired Public Employees of Nevada] such as the smaller county groups like hospital groups and teachers groups from Clark County.  I want to make sure we get input into this.  I endorse the idea of the study.  I think it’s something that’s critically needed, and I want to make sure that the group has the input from sufficient numbers so that it gets a broad spectrum of concerns.  As you know, I’ve pushed this legislation in the past.  In fact, I think some of the legislation that I’ve pushed is part of the problem.  I’m looking for a good solution here.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Why don’t we do this, since I don’t think we’re actually going to approve this tonight, it’s more for your feedback for discussion purposes.  Do you support the idea of an advisory committee, which is more like the technical committee to the old 353?  It just says, “at least 7 members.”  We could always increase that.  “At least 3 of whom represent public employee organizations.”  We could either leave it generic and note that we’re talking about SNEA, SEIU, whatever.  “Two public employers.”  Perhaps we could specify at least one from a local government.  “Two members from the private sector.”  What I was really working on there was more with a medical field background, risk management, or something along those lines.  So we could rework that, maybe make it 9 and add a member of RPEN specifically, and then any others they decide they want to do so that they have a working group.  Would that make some sense then?

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Yes, it would.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We can come back with some language on that.

 

Assemblyman Grady: 

I think that was my intent.  The reason I said RPEN is because they have been so close to this issue.  Marty [Bibb] probably has the knowledge for the retired people.  I agree with you that retired teachers, whom I’m getting the most information from, have been hit really hard on this.  We’ve got to do something to protect that area.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We’ll come back with an amendment that incorporates all of our concepts tonight so at least we can see what everything looks like together.  If we go to the next page, Woody Thorne from the PEB Board has added some language.  I don’t have any problems changing from “allegations” to “concerns.”  I don’t think anybody else does.  The main thing is to make sure that they’re adding additional language for consideration.  We’ll come back next week when we do our work session with an incorporated amendment.  Thank you for your help.  I’ve started a file with notes and stuff, and that helps me get a better handle on it.

Assembly Joint Resolution 11:  Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to require gubernatorial appointment of members of Board to Regents and to specify number and terms of members. (BDR C-18)

 

[Chairwoman Giunchigliani, continued]  The next area is A.J.R. 11.  We heard this on April 3.  This is a suggestion for the Board of Regents.  This would be the actual constitutional amendment, which is separate from the issue that it was already passed out of the Assembly Education Committee. 

 

I increased the number to parallel what the Education Committee did.  They closed it, reducing from 13 to 9.  The Governor had wanted 7, so that’s how I drafted the bill, but I am recommending that we go back to 9 so we’re consistent on that part of it.  The additional suggestion was that we do a melded group—appointment and elected.  The suggestion is that 3 of the positions would each come from a congressional seat.  We’d know that they would already comply with geographic, racial, and so forth, background.  Make sure that the 4-year terms apply to the elected members, but they need to get an initial staggering.  I read the language strangely in the one section.  I just wanted to make sure that that was looked at.

 

We deleted all of the other items that Carole Vilardo had suggested.  They didn’t need to be in the Constitution.  She’s absolutely correct.  Keep it simple.  Then the other key piece is that the Legislature would provide for duties or qualifications of the individuals by statute.  That way, the Legislature doesn’t have to go about changing the Constitution each time.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 11.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN MCCLEARY VOTING NO.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

A.C.R. 10 was just discussion, because I needed to figure out what exactly to spend the time rewriting.  We will take it up in work session later. 

 

We’re done with our work session document.  We will open the hearing on S.B. 147.  Stacy, could you explain what’s different in this bill from the one we sent over to the Senate already, or what’s the same, for that matter?

 

Senate Bill 147 (1st Reprint):  Makes various changes relating to Commission on Ethics and statements of financial disclosure. (BDR 23-500)

 

Stacy Jennings, Executive Director, Nevada Commission on Ethics:

[Introduced herself]  Senate Bill 147 is the agency bill for the Nevada Commission on Ethics.  It’s shorter than it was when we started in the Senate.  There are only 13 sections (Exhibit E).

 

The first section creates a requirement for city and county clerks and the Executive Branch of the Legislature to submit to us a list of public officers annually.  This is something that we worked with all of these people last summer on.  We’re already doing it.  This would merely codify what’s already being done.  There’s no fiscal impact on the cities or the counties.

 

Section 2 just makes a technical change.

 

Section 3 allows us to provide ethics training to governments at no cost.  That’s something that our Commission feels very strongly about.  Currently, the statute says, I “shall” collect reasonable costs for doing that.  Since we have a travel budget within the Commission, we’d like to do that at no cost to other government entities.

 

Section 4 makes some changes to the time frames for ethics complaints, and I’ll talk about that in a minute under Section 8, which is really the main thing that would concern you about this bill.

 

Section 5 is something that the court struck down.  They told us in 1999 in the Gates Terminal D Concessions complaint that in NRS 281.481(2), the phrase that a public officer is using his office to benefit himself or any other person, “any other person” was unconstitutional and vague.  Therefore, the Senate chose to say that “any other person” means anyone to whom a public officer would have a commitment in a private capacity as defined in NRS 281.501 under the provisions regarding disclosure.  You can find who those people are on page 8 of the bill on lines 20 through 26.  It would be people who are members of your household, who are related to you by blood, adoption or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity, anyone who employs you or a member of your household, anyone with whom you have a substantial and continuing business relationship, or any other commitment or relationship that would be substantially similar. 

 

Section 6 is a technical change provided by the LCB.

 

[Ms. Jennings, continued]  I say Section 8 in my review, and I believe that’s Section 7.  I made a numbering mistake in my summary to you.  Section 7 is the very substantive part of this bill.  It makes some changes to the timeframes for our investigations process.  I provided you with a colored handout (Exhibit E).  It’s labeled Attachment A.  It shows that when a complaint comes and we have jurisdiction, I have 15 days to conduct an investigation and get [the information] to a 2‑member panel of our Commission for a determination on just and sufficient cause.  Currently, under regulation, the public officer has 10 days to respond, which means if I wait for their response, I only have 5 days to consider what they say and do any other investigations I feel necessary to make a recommendation to a panel.  That’s very difficult.

 

The information I provided shows you that it’s actually averaging us 54.3 days to [provide] something to a panel hearing.  What the Senate chose to do is to give us 45 days from the time it comes in the door.  I think that’s more reasonable than what we have now.  It really benefits the public officer and gives him time to respond to the investigations.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Stacy, could you wait one second?  We have a question.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

With regards to the 45 days, is this exclusively for investigations that have been asked of someone other than the candidate?  This isn’t about, for instance, if I call your office and say I have a question about something that’s come up, could you give me some advice or a ruling on this particular case as it pertains to my own public office and something that I’ve been asked to do?  Do you see what I’m saying?  In other words, if I come to you, I don’t want to have to wait 45 days for that sort of advice.

 

Stacy Jennings:

Correct.  I think what you’re referring to is the first party opinion request process.  When those come in, we take them to the very next Commission meeting, so it’s never more than 30 days, because they meet monthly.  Usually, if they come in within 7 calendar days before the meeting, we can get them before the Commission at the next meeting.  This applies only to someone filing a complaint against you and you having an adequate time to respond.

 

Section 8 of the bill, as well as a small portion of Sections 7 and 12, are all provisions that relate to statutes that used to allow us to examine whether someone submitted a third-party complaint in bad faith, and if they did, to assess a $5,000 fine on that person for so doing.  In the Sam Dehne case in 2001, the Commission did assess Mr. Dehne a $5,000 fine.  He took it to the Court, and the Court said that was against the First and FourteenthAmendments of the U.S. Constitution andstruck down those statutes.  That’s what the language in Sections 7, 8, and 12 do.  You also repealed that in A.B. 127 where you repealed the campaign practices statute.

 

Sections 9 and 10 were technical changes by the LCB.

 

[Ms. Jennings, continued]  Section 11 would change the civil penalties for late filing of financial disclosure statements.  I provided you with a chart for the current late fees (Exhibit E) that currently total $100 a day after the 16^th day forever.  As you might recall, on A.B. 529 you recommended that we transfer the filing for candidates and elected officers of these financial disclosure statements to Secretary of State Heller’s office.  We would keep the appointed in our office and refer any late filers or non-filers to the Secretary of State for enforcement of collection of late fees.  If you choose not to do that, the Commission would propose lowering the late fees for the filing to those that I outlined in my chart as they’re found in Section 11 of the bill.  We believe that the intent of the Legislature is to get these statements filed, not necessarily to create a new revenue stream for the General Fund. 

 

Section 13 makes the bill effective on passage and approval. 

 

We attached two amendments to my memorandum explaining the bill (Exhibit F).  The first amendment would be your option if A.B. 529 is acted on by the Senate Government Affairs Committee.  It transfers those financial disclosure responsibilities to the Secretary of State.

 

The first amendment, dated April 24, would delete the provisions of the bill that pertain to financial disclosures, because we would no longer need them.  I understand they did not act on that bill this morning in their work session, but they may do so Monday.

 

The second amendment is dated April 29 and makes a couple of changes we’d like to see.  If you happen to leave financial disclosure statements with us, we would like to delete “willfully,” because if you reduce the civil penalties, I think that they’re small enough that “willfully” doesn’t really play out.  They should be affordable for people to be able to pay.  The second thing deals with a couple of changes concerning information you’re requesting on that form.  I think the intent is that you get 3 months of this year to file it, but it’s for the last calendar year, and the statute is not really clear on that.  We just wanted to make that clear.

Assemblyman Conklin:

This bill has repealed NRS 281.525, which reads to me like a statement saying perjury is not allowed in the Commission hearings.  I’m curious as to why that’s being taken out.  Is there a court ruling saying that it’s illegal language?

 

Stacy Jennings:

Yes.  The Dehne case specifically said that NRS 281.437 and 281.525 were against the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

So it’s acceptable for me to come to the Commission and lie; is that correct?

 

Stacy Jennings:

No.  This statute said it was unacceptable for you to come and lie to get us to file a complaint.  There are other provisions in our statutes about giving the Commission false information, but this was just false information to ask us to do a complaint.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you.  Stacy, look at Section 11.  I don’t think the fining really works.  Was there any discussion in the Senate?  We briefly did here, and I neglected to bring it back, so it was my fault.  In several states, you actually lose your seat, or you can’t run again in the next election if you willfully don’t file your campaign reports, or willfully don’t file your financial disclosure statements.  Was there any discussion in the Senate regarding that?

 

Stacy Jennings:

No.  Some people talked about not filing the forms and not being able to run in this bill.  I think it may be in one of Secretary of State Heller’s bills.  But they never took any action towards that because I think there were some mixed feelings.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I’m not talking necessarily about the conscientious objectors.  I’m taking about people that just don’t file.  It makes all of us look bad.  Most of us comply.

 

Stacy Jennings:

We got a list of 1,800 public officers from the counties, the cities, and the state this year.  As of April 4, there were only 475 that we hadn’t heard from, and we sent out notices to those folks.  Between April 4 and today, we’re down to only three people that have not responded.  I think that says a lot about the people who have filed.

 

[Ms. Jennings, continued]  Another interesting fact is that of the database we have now, only about 300 make over $10,000 per year for serving.  Most of the people are part-time appointed or elected boards and commissions, and these requirements are confusing for them.  They don’t understand that sometimes it’s an annual filing, not just when they’re appointed or they’re not getting the information.  A lot of the fines we were looking at our Commission meeting this morning, the person made $320 last year, and they owe a $575 penalty.  The statute does cap, and it would remain in at the annual compensation, but we’re saying, “You donated your time to the state for $320 last year.  We’re going to take it all away from you.”  It just doesn’t seem right.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That doesn’t.  We changed two sessions ago to say that if you’re on an advisory or an unpaid, you don’t have to file.

 

Stacy Jennings:

Correct.  If you’re not compensated, you don’t have to file.  If you’re in an advisory capacity, you don’t have to file.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We still have 1,800 people that are still out there?

 

Stacy Jennings:

That’s just regular public officers, not candidates.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Should we look at an income threshold?  That’s a lot of paperwork.

 

Stacy Jennings:

I think the people you’re really looking for are either the people that are elected or running for office, or maybe the people that are making over $5,000 or $10,000 per year, because most of the people that serve are on the part-time boards.  You could say a public officer that’s elected, or an appointed public officer that makes in excess of $6,000, $8,000, or whatever you wanted to say.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

Candidates don’t make anything.

 

Stacy Jennings:

Candidates don’t make anything, but both this bill and A.B. 529 would say, “candidates who will be entitled to receive compensation when they serve.”  So it’s still a qualifier that if they’re running for office, it’s a paid office.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think the public absolutely thinks disclosure is the right way to go, and I think that’s the most important part.  It’s like all these local entities that tend to say, “Oh, I can’t vote on this.  I can’t vote on that.”  Then why did you run for office if you’re not willing to do it?  If you disclose properly, then you should go ahead and vote.  I’m trying to figure out for your 1,800 list.  That’s an awful lot of people.

 

Stacy Jennings:

We have never gotten a request for this information filed by an appointed officer.  It’s always an elected officer, and the only people that request them are members of the press or political campaigns.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So appointed officers, are they making actual policies as a general rule?  I guess they can in certain circumstances.

 

Stacy Jennings:

If they’re required to file, they’re exercising a public power, trust, or duty.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Is there any other discussion from the Committee?  [There was none.]  You have a couple of amendments?

 

Stacy Jennings:

Yes, and I have briefly gone over those.  The April 24 amendment would delete the provisions if A.B. 529 moved forward.  The April 24 amendment would just take out what you need to take out of our bill.  It wouldn’t conflict.  The April 29 amendment would be the amendment we would propose if A.B. 529 weren’t going to go through, transferring those responsibilities.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Are there any questions from the Committee about either the bill or the suggested amendments?  [There were none.]  Is there anyone who wishes to testify on S.B. 147?

 

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum:

[Introduced herself]  I don’t have any particular problem with this bill.  I just wanted to make a couple of points.  I thought some of the things that Stacy said were some things we ought to think about.  I think Ms. McClain has brought them up in the past.

 

Who’s interested in these particular financial disclosure reports?  The press and other political campaigns.  The people aren’t interested in them, or they would be asking about it.  I think that might be an erroneous notion that we have that the people are all that interested in them.  I think it’s ultimately a violation of our individual rights, and we continue our challenge with this in the courts.  Of course, when they ask in the courts if we’re trying to do something about it legislatively, I want to be able to tell them that I was here and told you that that’s where we are and that’s how we feel. 

 

[Ms. Hansen, continued]  I did relate to you the other day the information from the Federal Election Commission about the National Socialist Party, which does not file either its donors or its employees or that information because of the harassment and persecution that they receive.  The courts have allowed that exemption.  We’ll be pursuing an exemption similar to that for the Independent American Party as we pursue these court cases and other things.  I just wanted to put that on the record here.

 

One other thing I’ve said in the past, I know that you and Assemblyman Beers have pursued this one issue in the Senate with A.B. 127 with regards to repealing portions of that.  I want to make sure that within the context of filing financial disclosures, and if there are complaints against public office holders, that you have the opportunity to not just come before an administrative appointed board where you lose all of your constitutional rights in the Ethics Commission, but you actually have the opportunity to go to a court and receive a fair hearing on that.  I’m not sure what their requirements are under law. 

 

We talked about allowing for a trial de novo to make sure that your constitutional rights were not denied you as these issues were referred to an unelected body where your due process and right to trial by jury is guaranteed by the Nevada Constitution are abrogated.

 

I just wanted to bring those things to your attention as you move forward so that you continue to be reminded of those important rights that are jeopardized by some of these administrative hearings and administrative committees.  No fault of those particular committees, and not the fault of the Ethics Commission.  That’s the way the law reads.  I do think it does jeopardize the constitutional rights of those of you who are subjected to them.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

If I’m to follow your scenario to its logical conclusion, the way to get around it being a administrative question would be to attach a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor process to not filling out the forms and thus start the legal process in action.  Is that what you’re anticipating happening, or encouraging that the Ethics Commission immediately move in that regard to people who don’t fill out forms properly?  When we fill out forms for a driver’s license and to run for public office, there’s certain paperwork you have to do.  I think this is part of the responsibility of keeping an open society.  I’m kind of in a quandary, Ms. Hansen, as to what you’re thinking as a solution to the issue that you’ve raised.

 

Janine Hansen:

I appreciate your question.  First of all, I may be entirely mistaken, but you, as the Chairman of Judiciary, may know.  I don’t think you get a trial for a misdemeanor in the state of Nevada, so I wouldn’t be suggesting that you be charged with a misdemeanor, because you wouldn’t have a trial then, either.  Perhaps just as a result of an appeal from an administrative body that you would have the right for an appeal to a trial de novo.  That’s a different avenue than going with a misdemeanor where you don’t get a trial, if I’m correct in that assumption.  I’m not sure. 

 

Secondly, to answer your question, although many people believe it’s for open government to have to expose all of their personal finances, I don’t actually believe that it’s ever made one person running for office more honest, or one dishonest person more honest in the whole realm of it.  I’m sorry to say it hasn’t improved the legislative process, or the political process, in my opinion.  The one thing it has done is limit the number of people willing to run for office, because they don’t want to put up with it, and they don’t want the intrusion.

 

When we talk about participation, I think all of these things, rather than making things better, make them worse, because there’s less participation.  I think with more participation you have more free speech.  In any case, many of these issues come out in campaigns if there is corruption or something else.  My basic objection to it is that I don’t believe that it improves the political process or that it is beneficial to the whole system.  I know we may have a basic disagreement on that, but I hope that answers your question.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I was kind of curious.  I recognize where the ethics questions have come from and how they came to be placed in the statutes.  I don’t disagree with your supposition on whether it improves the quality of a candidate or lessens the quality of candidates who enter the race or the truthfulness of the people who fill out the forms.  It’s just that you can always, even in a misdemeanor, get your day in court.

Janine Hansen:

Maybe that’s the answer, Mr. Anderson.  I’m not sure what the answer is there.  There are probably several good answers.  I think one of the problems that Ms. Giunchigliani and Bob [Beers] had with all of that was that the administrative process doesn’t afford you your constitutional rights in the way you would anticipate.  Perhaps there’s another process, either the one you suggest as a possibility, or a trial de novo is a possibility as an appeal.  That would allow that, which I think is very important, because I think people’s constitutional rights—not on purpose, but perhaps because we’ve gotten in the habit of using administrative hearings, which I think all abrogate people’s constitutional rights whether it be through OSHA or the Tax Department or whatever do it.  I think because we’re in the habit of doing that, and it’s easier, and it might not cost as much money in the judiciary of our state, it certainly begins to, on every level, jeopardize people’s individual liberties, because, of course, it’s very difficult if you are the one that has to appeal this.  It costs a lot of money, so most people say, “Well, I’d rather just accept it rather than fight it.”  That’s why so few are willing to take the opportunity to do so.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you very much.

 

Stacy Jennings:

Madam Chair, if I could just respond very quickly?  Prior to 1997, it was a misdemeanor to not file your financial disclosure statement, and you made the decision to make it a civil penalty.  Even though we are an administrative body, all of our opinions and decisions are appealable, and our statutes do provide that they’re appealable in district court.

 

Richard Siegel, President, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada:

[Introduced himself]  I just wanted to come up and testify in relationship to Section 8 and the deleted language.  A conversation with Mr. Beers before suggested with a lot of people, due to the Legislature, it might be a good idea to refer to this.  This is one of many parts of the Ethics Commission law which the ACLU testified was unconstitutional when it was first proposed, because it affects the most protected speech we have, which is political speech.  The courts and the editorial pages of our state have emphasized they want this political speech to be very free and wide ranging, including complaining about public servants.

 

I want, in particular, to make the point I made to Mr. Beers before the hearing.  When we represented Mr. Dehne, we fought this through just one level of court.  Sometimes we fight it through two and three levels of courts in the federal side.  If the ACLU wins a case in the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, it’s very possible that on a single issue like this, they will award $100,000 or more to be paid by the State of Nevada to the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.  The American Civil Liberties Union collects millions of dollars from states on exactly these kinds of circumstances. 

 

[Mr. Siegel, continued]  In every single state in the union, the ACLU is appearing before bodies like you, and they are saying, “If you pass this law, we will have to take this to the federal courts, and we will win.”  Then we do it, and we get our money.  When you pass laws such as Section 8, which is being repealed here, you are actually making a contribution to the ACLU.  I should be saying, “Go ahead and pass more unconstitutional laws,” but that isn’t the business we’re in.  We’re in the business of getting constitutional laws, not in collecting money and making work for attorneys.  Some organizations, I’m sure, would be happy to see you do this with A.B. 127, which is the sister bill.  Ultimately, you’re simply making large contributions to the ACLU.  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Would you then use those contributions to defend pornography?

 

Richard Siegel:

We don’t defend pornography.  We defend the First Amendment, the right of free expression, and even a very bad book on tax policy, if you’re following us.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I bet they would use the money to support anything you’d like to look at.  Thank you.  No further questions.  We will close the hearing on S.B. 147.  We’ll take up S.B. 453.  I will point out that Judiciary meets in this room at 7:00 p.m., or upon our adjournment, so we’ll try to move this along.

 

Senate Bill 453 (1st Reprint):  Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-560)

 

Dean Heller, Nevada Secretary of State:

Good afternoon.  I will keep this short.  I think we’ve already had several dog and pony shows in front of this Committee on this particular issue, there aren’t many issues in this particular bill that haven’t already been discussed thoroughly.

 

Senate Bill 453 is the minimum requirement of the federal HAVA (Help America Vote Act) bill, minus one particular provision that I know the Chairwoman has some issues and concerns with, and I’ll get back to that in just a minute.  That’s the issue on provisional balloting.

 

I’ve got several letters here that I was asked to submit for the record.  I’ve got a letter here from Bonnie Parnell, representing the League of Women Voters in Nevada (Exhibit G) stating their support.  Jan Gilbert, with the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, who was unable to attend, also supports this particular bill.

 

[Mr. Heller, continued]  Questions are constantly asked about the need for a bill like this.  I understand being on your side; I asked similar questions when I served in the Legislature.  The question is constantly asked whether or not Nevada needs a bill like this since we’re not having a lot of problems.  We don’t have a lot of issues with our elections.  I would agree with that.  I would say that the election process over the last two or three election cycles have been very smooth.  We have some clerks and registrars across this state that are second to none in any other state.  They work hard.  My office works hard.  Our Elections is very well prepared when we go into these elections. 

 

I’d also point out that we have had problems in the past.  Those who represent Washoe County [may remember] some of the issues that we had to deal with three or four election cycles ago.  In those instances—and of course, in instances where we do have a change in registrars or a change in clerks—the provisions in this bill will help support what they’re trying to do and what we’re trying to achieve to avoid election fraud, to avoid having what happened in Florida be a repeat here in the state of Nevada.  I think the bill goes a long way in that particular direction.

 

I do want to point out those sections of the bill that are of some concern, and that has to do with the provisional balloting (Exhibit H).  I know there are some concerns of leaving provisional balloting all the way down the ballot itself as opposed to just the federal races.  Maybe I can use as an example, and I would ask that you reconsider your position with this example.  If there are any members on this Committee that went to the voting booth and wanted to participate in this next election, and for some reason or another your name was not on the list as cleared, and you went in there and they said, “Nope, we don’t have you on our list.”  First of all, I think that would upset you.  I would understand that.  If you take out the provision that would allow you to vote beyond the federal races, you would only be allowed to participate in this next election in the presidential race, the U.S. Senate race, and your own congressional district.  You wouldn’t be allowed to vote for yourself.  You wouldn’t be allowed to vote for your state Senator or anybody else at the local level.  I would certainly hope that you could just imagine the frustration and how upset you would be if the Secretary of State or a clerk or registrar made that particular error in your particular case [making] this what you’re asking other people to do who do walk in and are concerned that they aren’t allowed to vote in some of these other elections.

 

[Mr. Heller, continued]  Having said that, my job here today is to try to convince you that I believe that that’s a provision that those that are here in this room, most of those that are in the room today, do support.  If there’s any way that I could urge you to move in that direction, I believe it’s in the best interest of voters and citizens across this state. 

 

I’ll leave that with you.  I do have an appointment, Madam Chairwoman, but I’d be happy to answer any questions that may be on the minds of the members of the Committee.  Again, I know this issue has been hashed about in this Committee for some time now, and if there are any additional questions or concerns that you might have, I’d be happy to answer them at this time.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you.  Are there any questions from the Committee?  [There were none.]

 

Dean Heller:

Renee [Parker] is here, if you want her to walk through it again.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The statewide voter registration lists the unique identifier.  That’s just something the local governments do currently with their voter ID?

 

Dean Heller:

They do it currently, correct.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So that ID is already set up for a person and would go back and forth then.

 

Dean Heller:

Computer-generated.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

You’re talking about doing a Web-based list in your HAVA meetings, right?

 

Dean Heller:

Yes.  We’ve had numerous vendors approach us, and we haven’t come to a particular decision at this point, but Web-based is definitely one of the options.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s the quickest option to get it up and running now.  What is your plan for now to get the statewide voter registration?

 

Dean Heller:

First of all, we want to get the state plan completed.  The advisory committee has met, and we have not yet finalized this particular plan, but we plan on putting that and make it available to the general public for their feedback.  Based on the feedback from the public, which is 30 days, it’s at that point that we will then move in the position as to what we want to do, what direction do we want to move, what’s the quickest way to move, and take all those options.  In the case the general public has provided additional information that we otherwise hadn’t thought of, we’ll take that into consideration at that time.  We’re about 30 days away from making that kind of a decision.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The money that was received from the feds—

 

Dean Heller:

We’ve already received the $5 million.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

—will be used for what?

 

Dean Heller:

It will be used for buyouts of machines and statewide voter registration system.  Some of the dollars probably will be used for changing the voter application forms, but statewide voter registration [and for] buyout of the systems, if we have enough dollars there.  But we do anticipate above and beyond that $5 million, with the approval of the state plan, at least another $5.7 million.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

What is the buyout of the systems?

 

Dean Heller:

We’re talking about the voting systems, the punchcard systems.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

In other words, helping the rurals.

Dean Heller:

Actually, there are about seven rurals, but we’re also looking at a much broader set of trying to put every county on the same system.  Yes, it does help the rurals.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Why would you need to put every county on the same system?  If you do a Web-based system, then you’re in compliance.

 

Dean Heller:

Only if we have the dollars and the dollars are available for it.  The statewide voter registration system will be one system, but we’re talking about the voting systems themselves, whether they’re touch screens, optical scanning, whatever the case may be.  I think it’s in the best interest to have one uniform system across the state if we can afford it, and that’s a big question.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Who will you be presenting this budget suggestion to?

 

Dean Heller:

Hopefully, federal funds will cover that.  That’s the goal.  If it becomes unrealistic because of the lack of federal funding, then we’ll do something different.  The ultimate goal is to put everybody on the same statewide voter registration system, everybody on the same voter system.  If the federal funds are there, that’s the goal.  If not, we’ll make necessary arrangements.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Looking at 3(g), “Be electronically accessible to each state and local election official in this state at all times.”  They will be able to look at anything, but not change anything.  You will be able to look at anything, but not change anything.

 

Dean Heller:

That’s correct.  The registrars and the clerks, themselves, will be able to make the changes.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

They’ll make updates, but you’ll be able to capture those updates.

 

Dean Heller:

That’s correct.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

There was discussion at one meeting where we were concerned about candidates.  Would they be able to download and not pay anybody any longer for their lists, or how would that work?

 

Dean Heller:

That has been discussed.  Obviously, it’s a revenue source for the counties today on some of those issues.  We’ll be capturing that information in our office, and that has yet to be determined at this point.  There is some question as to whether or not to allow the revenue flow to continue into these counties.  What they normally charge is a penny a name.  If this information becomes readily available, it’s only the cost of a disc to receive this information.  I’m not too concerned about the revenue source of it.  I’d much rather have the service to the candidates and those that want this information, as opposed to trying to figure out how much to charge them.

 

Assemblyman Conklin:

I have two questions for you.  I’m looking at Section 12, which talks about the counting of provisional ballots.  I’m concerned about the ballots that may not be accurate.  Not the ballot itself being accurate, but the potential for fraud.  How are you going to verify that these ballots are good ballots?  How are you going to count them with respect to getting reporting in that night?  There are two provisions in NRS, 293.387 and 293C.387.  It seems a little convoluted to me.  I’m looking for some help in how you envision this working and where you might find that statute to sort of solidify it.

 

Dean Heller:

Mr. Conklin, I sure do appreciate your question.  That’s why I called up Mr. Lomax, the Registrar of Voters for Clark County, who does the election night counting.  It would probably make more sense for him to give you the detailed information, since that is his job and what he is an expert at.

 

Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters:

[Introduced himself]  In regards to provisional voting with the DRE voting machines, if a voter comes in, there are three cases where they would vote provisionally.  One is we don’t have them on the rolls, so we allow them the opportunity to vote. 

 

The second is that once the statewide voter registration system in place and hooked up with the DMV, there will be no ID requirement.  There is a temporary ID requirement for people who registered after January 1 of this year.  The first time they vote, if they’ve registered by mail and never showed an ID, they have to bring that ID with them and then they can vote.  If they forget that ID—they’re a registered voter, they’re in our book, but they didn’t bring their ID with them—then they would vote provisionally. 

 

[Mr. Lomax, continued] The way they vote is we can activate our voting machine in what’s called a provisional mode.  They will vote just like anyone else.  It won’t look any different to them when they’re casting their ballot, except that ballot will be stored in a separate part of the machine’s memory.  There is a randomly-generated number that is assigned to that ballot.  The voter has a copy of that number, and we have a copy of the number, but we don’t have any idea of how the voter voted.  It’s just stored in the memory.  We then research to find out whether or not that voter was authorized to vote.  If we didn’t have him on the rolls, we would attempt to find out why we didn’t have them or if they really were registered.

 

If they didn’t bring their ID, what this law proposes is they would have three days to get their ID in to us so that we could count their ballot.  We will never know whom they voted for.  You simply then, within that 3-day period, enter the number that was assigned to that ballot, and you either accept it or reject it, and it’s moved one way or the other into the totals. 

 

On election night, we can give you all of the results except for the provisional ballots, but we can give you the number of provisional ballots that were cast in each race.  If you’re in Assembly District 37 and you win by 100 votes, we can tell you there were only 4 provisional ballots cast in your district, or we could tell you there were 1,000.  We could tell you how many there were.  There would be three days to resolve that. 

 

Provisional means you give an opportunity to resolve these issues.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Mr. Lomax, I have two questions.  First of all, in Section 7, subsection 3, it says that a person can vote provisionally if he declares that he is entitled to vote after the polling place would normally close.  My concern is here that you mentioned that a person has to have registered to vote and just simply doesn’t have ID or for some reason isn’t in the system, but they’ve registered.  Can these people vote if they have not registered to vote but are eligible under this?  The second question is in the manner that you have described it to me, it would seem that a person could potentially extrapolate back how someone voted if they had access to a number and a name.  I just want to make sure that the sanctity of the voter is a closed ballot, and no one ever knows how they voted.

Larry Lomax:

First, in answer to your question can anyone vote who is not registered.  HAVA requires that they have to come in and sign an affidavit claiming they were registered.  If they claim they were, at this point in time we don’t know whether they are or not, so we are going to let them vote provisionally.  If subsequent investigation does not reveal that they were registered, and we can find no record of it, that ballot would never be counted.  We also would never know how they voted.

 

The second question is protecting the sanctity of the ballot.  No one ever sees that ballot.  It’s stored in the memory in a way we have no access to.  All we know is we have access to the number assigned to that voter, and the voter has access to that.  That number is entered in, and the ballot is either accepted or rejected.  HAVA does require that the voter be able to contact our office or the Secretary of State’s office to find out whether or not we counted their ballot.  If we did not, we have to tell them the reason why.  It also provides that only that voter can access to that information.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

If, on election night, someone comes to the ballot box and says, “I am eligible to vote, and I’ve been a resident for over 30 days.”  I don’t know what all the specifics are.  They can sign an affidavit and take a provisional ballot.  Are they then registered to vote for future elections, or must they go through the registration process?

 

Larry Lomax:

When we have talked about our procedures, we would probably give them a registration form right there and have them fill it out, but that wouldn’t qualify them for that election that night.  We could take care of registering for future elections administratively because they were there.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

So the affidavit for the provisional ballot is not the same as registering to vote, which would be same-day registration.

 

Larry Lomax:

Correct.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

Mr. Heller, how many other states have provisional ballots like you have proposed in S.B. 453?

Dean Heller:

Every bill is in compliance with HAVA.  The federal legislation would have to provide for provisional ballots.

 

Vice Chairman Conklin:

For federal races only?

 

Dean Heller:

For federal races, yes, unless the states decide to move it to their state and local races.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

It seems to me, maybe it’s just an observation rather than a question for the Secretary of State, that the purpose of HAVA is to help the political entities that have not been able to afford to purchase the kind of equipment that might be necessary to bring an up-to-date comprehensive system online throughout the country.  That was the concern, I think, that originated this.  While the large counties of Nevada have been able to stay on the forefront, at least Clark County and, I think to a certain extent, Washoe County.  The smaller counties in the state need a little bit of help in order to make sure that some of those systems are brought up to speed.  Are there any that are still using a lever?

 

Dean Heller:

No.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

So everybody is using at least punchcards.  What’s the smallest district that is still using mail-in ballots?  Less than 10 or 20?  Is there any county that’s exclusively mail-in balloting?

 

Dean Heller:

I don’t think so, but they do have some precincts within their counties.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Obviously, every county does.  Is there any county [in which] over 50 percent of their districts are small enough that they would be using hand-marked ballots?  I was thinking of Esmeralda [County].

 

Dean Heller:

That was my first thought, but no.

Assemblyman Anderson:

Is it economically practical to bring to counties such as Esmeralda, Nye, and Eureka these kinds of programs?  How many polling stations for how many people are we talking about?

 

Dean Heller:

They provided those numbers to us, Mr. Anderson, during the subcommittee.  We can give you the numbers for precincts and polling sites per county for those rural counties.  For example, Carson City has 26 precincts, 3 polling sites.  Churchill [County] would have 19 precincts, 2 polling sites.  If this information would be helpful to you in looking at this, we would be happy to provide it.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

I just was thinking it really wasn’t going to be that big a deal, and this sounds to me like it isn’t going to be that big a deal.  It’s not going to change that dramatically.

 

Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State:

[Introduced herself]  One of the other issues is that under HAVA, by January of 2006, we [must] have at least one Direct Record [DRE] touch-screen machine in each polling place in the state.  Some of the concerns of the clerks are that they have optical scan or they currently have punchcard, that raises additional issues of how they make that machine compatible with the DRE that they’re required to have.  In those instances, at least some of the discussions at the advisory committee meetings have been that it makes more sense to upgrade fully to the touch screen.  Otherwise, you’re dealing with two separate sets of counting.  There would be three, actually, because their absentee may be another system.  That was part of their concern.  They have to go that way to some extent anyway, and it complicates the process if you don’t.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

So if we don’t move forward to try to bring uniformity to the system at this time, the smaller counties will move on their own, and then it will be more expensive to do it in the future without any potential federal aid to achieve that?

 

Dean Heller:

That’s correct.  I’d also point out for the Committee that our discussions have [covered] a lot about rural counties and rural needs.  I assure you that we’ve discussed with Washoe some of these concerns, not only having a touch screen in every polling place, but also upgrading the current system that they have.  We’ve also talked about reimbursing Clark County.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s been somewhat touchy, I understand.

 

Dean Heller:

But also reimbursing Clark County, because they’re going to be buying some additional machines for this next election cycle.  Some of these HAVA dollars should be there to assist Clark County and some of their concerns and their needs as they continue to expand.  So this is a statewide program issue, and we certainly do feel that Washoe and Clark deserve the support from this as much as the rurals do.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

When do you see this as being ultimately in place?

 

Dean Heller:

The requirement is 2006.  Of course, it’s all subject to federal funds being available.

 

Assemblyman Anderson:

Do you, in all honesty, believe we’re going to have a sufficient number of those pieces of equipment in place by 2006?

 

Dean Heller:

Yes, I think we will.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Dean, so I don’t forget, 2006, unless funding is made available, so we do not have to [comply] if they don’t provide the funding?

 

Dean Heller:

That’s how we have set forth the state plan, but we are going to be required to do it anyway.  Although we say it’s subject to federal funding, we may come back to the Legislature if those funds aren’t available.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Maybe we can add a provision that says we don’t.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I’ve got a couple of areas I wanted to ask some questions in.  Mr. Lomax, going back to Vice Chairman Conklin’s questions on the provisional voting, as I understand it, on election night, thinking back to some of the close elections that we’ve had, will we see the tally for each side of the question or the list of candidates in that race and then the number of provisional votes whose vote has not yet been determined?  So we’ll be able to tell at a glance that this is a race that provisional may turn or may not?

 

Larry Lomax:

That’s what we envision.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The bill doesn’t say that, though.

 

Larry Lomax:

The bill doesn’t require that.  The voting machines that we have, and the tabulation software that supports those voting machines, will allow us to do that.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Would it score the provisional votes and include those in the totals, noting that provisional voting could turn this result?

 

Larry Lomax:

Provisional votes are not tallied the night of the election.  They’re just set aside.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

So we’ll see the non-provisional vote tallies.

 

Larry Lomax:

You would know the number of ballots that were cast in your district that were provisional.  So if there were 10, 10 ballots cast in your district does not even mean 10 people voted in that race.  As you know, there are people that under vote.  It would give you kind of the worst case.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Conceivably, there could be provisional voters who didn’t vote all the way down the ballot?

 

Larry Lomax:

Absolutely.  Very rarely does a voter vote in every race.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Interesting.  Hold the champagne, I guess.  The second area of federally-mandated improvement to Nevada’s advanced electoral system, have we figured out what the dollar cost per voter in Esmeralda County will be?  I know it’s federal money, and we can spend it with impunity.  Nevertheless, I’d be real interested to find out what the cost per voter in the 10 smallest counties in the state in terms of population might be, so that they can kind of compare that to, say, student funding in their school district.

 

Dean Heller:

We haven’t gone through the math on that yet, but you have 606 registered voters in Esmeralda County with 3 polling sites.  You’re talking probably 3 or 4 machines there, and they’re about $4,000 apiece.  Roughly $4,000 by the time you get their software and all that stuff in.  Anyway, that gives you an idea.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

How about the touch screen?

 

Dean Heller:

We’re talking about the touch screen.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

That includes the touch screen?

 

Dean Heller:

Yes.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I’m coming up with a ballpark [figure] of $70 per voter, assuming all of them vote.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s more than textbooks.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I guess on my final series of questions, of course, would revolve around the computer systems that were discussed here in Section 3.  I just can’t get over the sense of backward movement that accompanies Nevada complying with this, where we already have 70 percent of the state.  You look at Nevada and say, “They’ve already got 70 percent of the state on a statewide voting system.”  I’m deeply concerned that with the 410 miles between Carson City and your office, Mr. Lomax, you’re not going to have near the screen responsiveness.  If your people are going to be doing data entry on a Web browser, they will quit.  They will quit. 

 

So I’m wondering if there are any other alternatives that we can [offer] here.  For example, would we be complying with HAVA if Clark County could maintain its own Clark County database and once a week send a comma delimited file of changes to Carson City?

Larry Lomax:

Technically, no, you’re not going to be complying with HAVA.  There’s no question about that.  Let me add a couple of things.  First of all, there’s no disagreement at this table.  Clark County is not going to cut over to a system, should it get a statewide system, until Clark County can continue to do exactly what it does now.  If our response time isn’t the same, we’re not going to cut over.  We’ve made that clear at every meeting, and they support that.  There are technical solutions available to do this, and they’re not all Web based.  There are solutions to this problem.

 

I understand everybody’s frustration, because it’s something that’s been thrust upon us, and now we have to deal with it and decide how we’re going to do it.  Batching, as you put it, on a weekly basis is absolutely not going to cut it in the eyes of the Judicial Department.  However, as you start squeezing that down from a week to a day to an hour to a minute, there is some point where it is acceptable.  They’ve held out to us Michigan as an example of a state that’s acceptable, and they do batching.  Somewhere in there is a way to do this.  This is all part of what this planning committee we’re all on is looking at. 

 

It’s important to me that this works and the system doesn’t get bogged down.

 

Dean Heller:

I assure you that is a concern of ours, and we’ve had lengthy discussions with our IT people and theirs.  We’ve even come to the table with the notion of perhaps leaving some of the servers in Clark County.  That wouldn’t lose our administrative efforts on dealing with the issues, but it would speed up the process and save us state money by doing it in that route.  We have numerous options out there, but we share your concerns.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I was going to suggest that as the only way that you’ll get close to the performance that you enjoy now is by having those servers in Clark County.  If you have them here [in Carson City] they might sometimes be commensurate performance, but they will certainly sometimes not be commensurate performance.

 

Dean Heller:

I assure you, I don’t believe in any manner that we’d lose our oversight of what our jobs and responsibilities are.  That avenue has been discussed.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I have better a rapport with his technical people than your technical people, just because he’s got more of them.  He’s doing this already.

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I just want to say that this does not frustrate me.  What happened in Florida a couple of years ago was horrible.  I’m still mad about it, and I’m going to be mad about it until 10 minutes after I’m dead.  What our congress people did is exactly what we all do.  Something happens, and we’re legislators.  We think, “We’ll fix it with some legislation.”  That’s exactly what they did.  I don’t feel like we’re victims here.  I think it’s a partially funded mandate, but it’s partially funded, and I think we should vote on this.  I support this.  I support having this law written in any way that gets us the money, and I’m perfectly happy to vote on it in that way.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I’ve got a list of questions.  A provisional ballot only applies to federal races under HAVA.  In this bill, it seems that there are two areas that really bring in provisional:  If you don’t have your ID because you registered by mail and if you don’t appear on the voter registration at the poll.  In looking at this, it mentions if you don’t appear on the statewide voter registration, I’m not sure if that’s what we’re talking about at that point.

 

Larry Lomax:

The reason they wrote it that way is because that’s what they’re envisioning everyone is using at that point in time.  Everyone is required to have a statewide voter registration.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Right.  But that won’t be in effect until 2006.

 

Larry Lomax:

That’s supposed to be in effect by 2004.  It can be waived until 2006.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Right.  But if we pass a law, I don’t want to create a loophole that there is no statewide voter registration, and have someone then argue that that doesn’t exist.  It just should say, “does not appear on the voter registration list.”  I don’t think it needs to speak to that, because the whole intent, eventually, is that it is statewide.

 

In looking at Section 7, subsection 2—and it appears in a couple of other ones—if they apply by mail to register to vote and have not previously voted in the election, there’s no date that says that they have to apply by mail after January of 2003.  We’re not talking about anybody that registered by mail previous to that time.

 

Larry Lomax:

You are correct.  The HAVA bill specifies this only applies to people who register after January 1, 2003.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I think we need to be clear, because I went back to the actual effective dates, and it doesn’t mention that.  You may leave, Alan may leave, Dan may leave, and somebody comes in and says, “I applied by mail 10 years ago.”  They’re not affected by provisional voting.  Only those since the law went into effect.

 

Larry Lomax:

Only those who registered after that date and who have never voted.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Okay.  We’ll make a note of that for potential change.  I’m just adding those who registered to vote after this date.

 

DMV has to be hooked up by what time?  When do they have to be operational to do cross-matching?

 

Larry Lomax:

The same rules would apply in the sense that the goal is 2004, but can be waived until 2006.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Do we know yet what the budgetary impact or the computer impact is going to be on them?  Is their Genesis compatible?

 

Renee Parker:

DMV has participated in the meetings on the statewide voter registration system in general.  We’ve had their tech people.  Luckily, DMV does not have to be part of that one vendor system, so all of the vendors that we’ve met with say that it’s an easy interface with their vendor.  Their tech people are excited about it.  I think part of their excitement is they also have to be entering into an agreement with Social Security.  They currently have an agreement with Social Security, and they pay a penny a name for every search that they do.  They think that this bill, and I believe their counsel has advised them, that they no longer have to pay, because they have to be hooked up, and they have to be able to do that research.  They have been involved in all of the meetings. 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

What exactly happens?  How does DMV work in all of this?  Someone ships them a name?  Or when they register a car, does that automatically get input, or what happens?

 

Larry Lomax:

The way that this is supposed to work is once DMV is online—or DMV can be batched on a daily, weekly, or some sort of basis—you then cross check all the new people that registered.  Now they are required to give us their Nevada driver’s license number.  These are the people we’re talking about.  They just run a cross check to make sure that is a real person.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

What if they just do a state ID?

 

Larry Lomax:

HAVA specifically says if they have a Nevada driver’s license, they have to use that number.  If they do not have a Nevada driver’s license, they have to give the last four digits of their Social Security number.  If they have neither, they sign an affidavit saying they have neither, and we assign them an ID.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So DMV does a batch check to do what?  To only see who you’ve registered to vote?

 

Larry Lomax:

It’s verifying that it’s a real person that really lives at that address.  They registered at an address with us, and we put down this number.  Now you just cross check it with DMV.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

What if they do P.O. boxes for their address, and they’re not allowed to register at a P.O. box?

 

Larry Lomax:

They can’t register at a P.O. box.  I’m not the ultimate expert in this at this point.  The idea is once DMV is involved in this, they’re theoretically not registered until that cross check is made.  That’s your verification that the voter is a real person.

Assemblywoman McClain:

Basically, you fill out the paperwork and put it in the system, but they don’t get that identifying voter registration number until it goes to DMV.  Either it’s their driver’s license number, Social Security number, or that other thing?

 

Larry Lomax:

When you register to vote, you don’t get a number anyway right then.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

I mean in the system.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

In your system you do.

 

Larry Lomax:

We would enter you into the system.  It will generate this number.  We have what we call “pending voters” right now, people who register with a post office box or a faulty address or forget to put in their party or all sorts of things.  They’re in the system, and they’re pending.  What we have to do is send all those voters letters letting them know what they forgot, or whatever it is, and try to get the correct information back so we can get them fully registered.  I would envision the DMV cross check would work in something of the same line, where if there’s something that looks different when you run this cross check, then you would send them a letter and try to get it straightened out.  The idea is to eliminate the requirement for an ID.  This was obviously put in by the people who wrote this law to try to eliminate an opportunity for fraud.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Not everybody drives.

 

Larry Lomax:

That’s correct.  That’s why they go to the Social Security number.  If they don’t have that, that’s why we assign them a number.  I didn’t write the law.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I know.  I’m just trying to understand what drugs they were on when they wrote this.

 

Renee Parker:

We’re actually the ones that are doing the cross checking.  They submit the voter registration application and give us their driver’s license.  We then double check with the DMV records that that’s accurate.  We’re supposed to ensure that the information in the statewide voter registration database is accurate.  That’s the check that we run.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

How many more staff are you going to need to do that down to each of the local DMV offices?

 

Renee Parker:

We’re not certain.  Right now, we’re anticipating bringing a technology person on, and potentially one other election staff member to deal with this, initially, working with the clerks and the registrars to [determine] the most efficient way to do this, and when we award the statewide voter registration system, making that interface an easy match.  It may automatically do it.  We may be able, as soon as it’s entered into the system, [to] automatically match it.  If they didn’t give us the driver’s license number, we’ve got the last four [digits] of the Social Security in there.  It automatically flows through the DMV system to match with Social Security.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So timeline-wise, you register somebody.  You enter it in.  You send it to DMV.  DMV says, “I don’t know who this is.”  Then who is responsible to then send it to Social Security for verification?

 

Larry Lomax:

They’re only going to be cross-checked by DMV if they gave us a Nevada driver’s license number.  I would assume DMV does know who they were.  If they say, “No, we don’t.  Something’s phony there,” then, just like any other phony or questionable registration we get, we’d have to try to contact the voter and straighten out the issue.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

If somebody registers to vote, and they do not have a Nevada driver’s license, it will either go get checked by Social Security number, it will be okay that way, or if they don’t have a Social Security number, you give them some other number.  The only thing that step is doing is that on that day when somebody comes in, a newly registered voter, you don’t have to ask them for their ID.  Is that what this step is all about?

 

Larry Lomax:

No.  Actually, we do ask them for their ID when they register in person.  They’re supposed to do that.  Nevada law currently says that.

Assemblywoman McClain:

Then you don’t have to anymore.

 

Larry Lomax:

We’re talking primarily about people now who registered by mail, because most people who register by mail don’t ship us an ID.  They would put down this number, and you would be able to run this check.  They would then not have to provide an ID later when they showed up to vote.  That’s the theory.

 

Assemblywoman McClain:

But if you don’t have a driver’s license, there are still other ways to check that they’re a real person, such as a Social Security number.  If they don’t have a Social Security number, then you give—

 

Larry Lomax:

The law just says after that we just give them this random number.  What we have found since we did away with the requirement for numbers about two years ago, or whenever the lawsuit took place, we have had a significant number of fraudulent registrations come in, and they’re very easily identifiable, because right now the number is optional.  When you get a pile of 50 or 60 or 100, and every one leaves that blank, it’s a dead giveaway that it’s a bunch of phonies.  We’ve been turning these over to the district attorney almost on a routine basis.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Is the field being left blank a driver’s license number field?

 

Larry Lomax:

The number on the voter application right now that says, “Social Security number, driver’s license, Nevada ID number,” is now optional, and people can leave that blank.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Is it three fields, or one and you pick which piece of data you want to put in?

 

Larry Lomax:

They don’t have to put anything, and they don’t.  It’s one field.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

It sounds like we’re ending up with 95 percent verification.  At some point, and I’m a little unclear, if I don’t have a driver’s license, then I will tell you on my newly designed registration form that I do not have a driver’s license.  The form will instruct me that it’s no longer mandatory.  I must now disclose the last four digits of my Social Security number.  I say, “My last name starts with an H.  I don’t have a Social Security number.”  Then you will assign me a number, but there’s no way for you to verify me, because there’s nothing to verify me against.  Right?

 

Larry Lomax:

That’s correct.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

So you end up with some small subset of registered voters who cannot be verified against one of these other sources.  What do you do with them?  Do you say, “I’m the registrar, and I’ve seen that person and shook his hand.”  He’s okay?  I’m not being facetious.  I’m just trying to understand.

 

Larry Lomax:

I understand exactly what you’re saying, and I haven’t thought through if we’re going to do anything different with those people than anyone else.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Is this going to be hooked into the NCIC, too, so that the police officer that stops my truck will know my party registration and whether or not I vote?  [Mr. Lomax indicated no.]  Are you sure?  You’re going to be batching records and sending them to the DMV, and they get my DMV record.  I’m thinking of Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory, and it’s scaring me.

 

Larry Lomax:

This has nothing to do with how you vote or anything else.  If someone does get it, all they’re going to know is that you’re a registered voter.  That’s all public information anyway.  This is just your voter registration data we’re talking about.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I want to get back to a couple more parts of the bill itself.  On page 4, Section 7, subsection 3, could you tell me what line 9 means?  A person signs an affirmation under provisional voting.  They declare he’s entitled to vote after the polling would normally close as a result of a court order extending the time established pursuant to a law of this state in effect 10 days before the date of this election.  What law would we have in effect 10 days before an election in this state?

 

Renee Parker:

This is just the language that comes out of the Help America Vote Act [HAVA].  I think all they’re saying is if a judge orders you to extend the time for the closing of the polls, and that’s pursuant to some law that isn’t being made up on that date, or assuming maybe a lot of the states have an ongoing Legislature, so the Legislature adopted a law 12 days before the election.  It’s just ensuring that the law was in effect for at least that 10-day period before the election.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Or if a judge just simply says, “You will open it.”

 

Renee Parker:

The purpose of this is he has to be doing it pursuant to some law that’s currently on the books.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Do we have any law currently on the books that a judge would refer to?

 

Renee Parker:

We’re not aware of any.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We can check into that. 

 

Larry Lomax:

This is more of a reaction to what happened in St. Louis where a judge ordered the polls to stay open an extra hour.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Let’s just check that, because I wasn’t sure what that language meant and what it applied to.  We’ll add that to the list.

 

Dean, have we changed the voter registration forms?  They were supposed to be done in January.  We may have to do them again pending the computer stuff.

 

This bill was written so that it applies to all races and not just federal.  You had originally had, I believe, a 10-day wait on the count.  It’s now 3 days in this bill.  The issue is really the person with the ID.  Even though the person doesn’t show up on your computer, I still don’t see how you are ever going to verify that unless they had a little yellow slip from the voter registration that they bothered to keep, rather than saying, “I registered at DMV,” and it never got turned in, which, unfortunately, is a great deal of the problem.

Larry Lomax:

I fully agree with you.  We don’t accept their receipt as valid proof that they registered, because you can go pick up a form, fill it out, and tear off and just keep the receipt.  I do not anticipate even a handful of people that are going to fall into this category that we are going to find we made a mistake on and they actually should have been allowed to vote.  We do find on Election Day, periodically, people show up at the poll and were not in the rolls for one reason or another.  Almost always, up to now, we’ve been able to resolve that on Election Day, so they don’t become provisional voters.  We just resolve the problem.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So could we just say that here, that we resolve them by Election Day?

 

Larry Lomax:

Those we resolve.  This would be another category of person that we’d have to let vote provisionally, because those are the ones we couldn’t resolve, and they claim they registered.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Couldn’t you direct that for those that registered after the date, you mail out—do all of the counties mail out some kind of ID card?

 

Larry Lomax:

Yes.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Then that’s what they have to [bring] when they go to vote.

 

Larry Lomax:

This provisional is addressing people who don’t have any of this stuff.  They’re just claiming that they did register, and we made a mistake.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s one subset, but that’s a very small subset.  The bigger subset is going to be those who registered by mail after the effect of this law and didn’t send in a voter ID.  That’s going to be your largest number of provisionals, I would think.

 

Larry Lomax:

I don’t even think that number’s good.  That’s a real unknown, because if they bring their ID with them to the polling place, they’re not provisional.  They get to vote.  It’s only people who fall into this category and forget to bring an ID with them to the polling place.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Years ago states used to require that you could not vote unless you had your voting card.  Is that still out there?

 

Larry Lomax:

Lots of states require it.  There’s been an ongoing debate because of this bill all over the country, and in every state Legislature, about IDs.  Various states are going different ways on this.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Back to Mr. Beers’ question, we could require in the bill, depending on whatever we do regarding the provisional voting and who it applies to, that when election results are posted for that night, that the results, at least at a minimum, include, “2,692 voted yes, 2,698 voted no, and there were 15 provisional ballots filed.”  They still wouldn’t know what the impact is, but when you have a really close race, at least you knew you had to stay on pins and needles for a little bit longer.

 

Larry Lomax:

My only caution is, I say I can do that.  I can’t speak for the other counties at this time.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We may need to find that out.  Dean or Renee, if you wouldn’t mind, if you could kind of survey and see if they post it.  Not everybody does, so if they don’t post it, then we don’t worry about it.  If they do issue some kind of election night results, then maybe that would be the key place.

 

We could also sunset, if we needed to, the language in here regarding the provisional ballot applying to those who don’t have an ID once the DMV and Social Security issue is up and running.  We may want to consider that.  So far, that’s all of my questions regarding the bill.  Does anybody else have anything regarding language or content?  [There was none.]  Thank you very much.  We appreciate your time.

 

Larry, you had an amendment?

 

Larry Lomax:

As I had mentioned, we are having some problem with clearly fraudulent voter registration forms down there, and I asked my district attorney to propose some language that would perhaps give me some authority when we, working with the district attorney, can identify that a registration is fraudulent to get these people back out of our rolls.  That’s the intent of this amendment (Exhibit I).

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We can always get the legalese to put it into more legalese, but the concept is that you have the ability to remove at some point, “four people that live next door to my neighbor’s house that don’t live there.” 

 

Then I see another one from Dean (Exhibit J), the fifth Saturday being changed to the fifth Sunday, because that was inadvertently done when you extended the 10 days (Exhibit K).  That’s all I see.  Are there other amendments that I missed?

 

Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder:

[Introduced himself]  Renee was kind enough to draft the language, but thought it was more appropriate that we ask for this amendment (Exhibit L).  It’s a one-liner dated May 8 of this year amending Section 44 to add, “or a contract awarded to a vendor to upgrade or replace voting systems throughout the state.”  In the bill presently, it allows the Secretary of State to negotiate with the vendor for the statewide system.  This would instead allow for going out to bid to contract for the actual voting equipment itself.  At this point, I had mentioned this at the last statewide meeting, the clerks want to go on record, and we want you to be aware, that we strongly feel that the first priority of the HAVA money, including Titles I and II money, should be to buy voting equipment, because that’s what we’re here talking about.  We’re here to improve elections and get voters.  It appears that there truly is enough money to do everything we need to do.  It’s a matter of a little bit of timing in there.  What we envision occurring is that we would try to purchase voting equipment this fall, if possible, because there’s an extensive training period not only for the clerks and our staffs, but for people on Election Day, our precinct workers and so forth.  We’d like to get on that and start getting trained.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

So the whole issue of this suggested amendment is Chapter 333 is the bid process, and this would exempt you to go to a sole source.

 

Alan Glover:

Correct.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

I usually don’t support sole sourcing, but have you picked somebody already?

 

Alan Glover:

No, and this is another issue that I’m not sure that we are clear on with the Secretary of State’s Office, and they can correct me if I’m wrong.  I thought we had an understanding early on in the process that they would allow the 15 rural counties to pick a system.  We very much want to move as a group.  I can tell you informally that they are looking at either one of the two systems that either Washoe or Clark used, because we would like to tie in with one of them.  We don’t see the necessity of having a single statewide election system voting equipment, but the more you have the better off for a variety of reasons, such as purchase price and support.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

The systems could be independent of the registration issue, but you’d like to have as much uniformity as possible, especially for the rurals, but also deal with the compliance for the aged and the disabled.  Maybe it would be helpful, and it doesn’t have to be for the passage or work session, but I’m sure IFC will ask for this, so maybe some kind of a plan on how you envision your budget flow to go.  How Section 44 would impacted might be helpful.

 

Renee, if you could get a flowchart, for those of us who are visual learners, of the discussion we were having regarding the DMV/Social Security verification, just so we can see what goes where.  Maybe the clerks could work with you on that part of it.  I think that would be helpful.

 

Renee Parker:

We’ll get that to you as soon as possible.  The budget for the voting systems, the state advisory committee has prepared a preliminary budget based on anticipated HAVA federal funds.  I can get you that out of the latest draft of the state plan.  It’s supposed to be posted on our Web site and going out for public comment hopefully tomorrow.  I made all of the changes that the advisory committee voted on, so we have that in there.  You have in Ways and Means the proposed budget for the HAVA funds that you held at that last Ways and Means until we got through passing this bill.  That budget [resulted from] me sitting down with Fiscal last week.  Unfortunately, it’s going to be a little different between what you see in the state plan and what you see in the budget that we have in Ways and Means because, for the Ways and Means purposes, we could only put in that budget what we know we’re getting.  In the state plan, we put uniformity of voting systems throughout the state if there’s full federal funding over the next two fiscal years.  If not, here’s how we’re going to move forward.  It’s kind of our best guess what you have in Ways and Means.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

That’s reasonable.  Is this bill exempt?  It doesn’t say it.

 

Renee Parker:

No, it’s not.  We need to get it out of here by next Friday.

Assemblyman Beers:

Mr. Glover, you talked about how you can’t just [install] the machine and off you go; there’s some training involved.  Have you got any kind of an estimate of what the cost would be?  Is it going to be $140 a person in Esmeralda County?

 

Alan Glover:

No.  That’s going to be included in the price that the vendors are going to give us.  Most of them are talking about a minimum of four hours for precinct workers.  This is why we’re negotiating with them.  We want them to do the initial training.  There will be a lot more training for our staff.  It is included.  That’s the beauty of it.  Most of the training is included in the vendor’s price.  HAVA requires a lot of outreach to the community.  The companies will do a lot of that [with] videos on how their systems work and some other public relations things.  No extra funds will need to be allocated for that out of the limited HAVA funds.  They’ll do it for us, and that’s going to be a big help.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

For purposes of retirement investment planning, what are the leading companies that sell these systems?

 

Alan Glover:

They’re all privately held companies from what I gathered.  I went back, for my budget purposes, and calculated, and I’ll check again, but I believe in Carson City it was going to go from $12 a voter to $48.  I’ll get you those figures, but I found that interesting on what it cost each person.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Initially, it sounds like a quadrupling of the expense of holding an election.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you very much.  I appreciate your patience. 

 

I’m going to ask the group, because Judiciary needs to start up, those who wish to testify on S.B. 453, if you can come up to the table as a group and be fairly brief, we’d appreciate it immensely.

 

Richard Siegel:

I have been a member of the HAVA Advisory Committee.  I have been a part of this process.  I brought to that committee over 20 hours of meetings.  Most of the concerns that this Committee has expressed—privacy issues, mandate issues—either myself or other people have raised those issues.  I am satisfied that the questions have been adequately answered as a public member of that committee. 

I feel that in addition to things that have been said today, there’s going to be progress in dealing with the disabled and the people who do not have English as a first language.  I do want to emphasize that it is very important that people have the opportunity for the provisional ballot in all elections.  The ACLU primarily hears from people who have not been allowed to vote, and it’s a very easy thing to take care of. 

 

As to Mr. Beers’ question, there are very few people, in the long run, who are going to be found to have actually legitimately registered, but they will have the satisfaction of putting in the vote.  We will do the proper review, and they will be satisfied.  It’s not like we’re going to wait for 1,000 ballots to be done.  That is not my impression.  I strongly support this with the full provisional ballot.  Thank you.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

Thank you very much.  I spoke to another member of the Committee today who didn’t know that the provisional ballot only applied to federal races under the federal law.  I thought it was interesting.  That was an eye opener.

 

Janine Hansen:

I have three quick points.  One, I think it is important to maintain the provisional voting for federal voting, but I oppose the entire bill, because I feel that it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, funded or unfunded mandate.  Also, I think it tends to make all of you legislative zeroes, because all you do is serve as a conduit for legislation for the federal government.  This is certainly an area in which the state has traditionally exerted authority over, and I think it’s unfortunate that one more time that’s being diluted by the federal government, and in your position as legislators, representing us is being diluted in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

 

One concern is the issue of the databases that Mr. Beers brought up.  I have served as the National Privacy Chairman for Eagle Forum and nationally worked on this issue for many years.  I think there is a concern of the flow-through to the DMV and the Social Security Department.  We’re concerned about identity theft.  We’re concerned about this kind of being our whole lives being in a database by the federal government.  What are the confidentiality provisions?  What are the provisions to protect the identity of the individuals?  I don’t see any in this bill.  Maybe I’ve missed them.  But I am concerned about that, because that information is available. 

 

One of the reasons people are concerned about their Social Security numbers on their voter registration is because if you have somebody’s Social Security number, you can get their whole life.  Their driver’s license is a very similar number to that.  Having a statewide voting system makes the problem more insecure for individual voters, instead of just in a county.  It’s more readily available to other people.  I ask you to consider what kind of production and confidentiality there would be to this gigantic government database we’re all going to be into now.  I’ve talked to people and said, “Why aren’t you involved?”  “I don’t want my name in the database.”  Now it’s really going to be in the database.  Thank you.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani:

We will take note of the confidentiality.  I think the local jurisdictions do a good job, but we need to make sure that as we embark into this new area we have that.  I think there already is language in, but we’ll clarify that, Janine.

 

Are there any further questions, or does anyone else wish to testify on S.B. 453?  [There were none.]  We will roll S.B. 449 to next week.  That’s the Government Affairs Committee.  Senator O’Connell is not here, and I don’t want to take it up without seeing if she or a staff person wanted to come.  If not, we’ll just deal with it next Tuesday.  We have no further business, so we are adjourned.

 

[The meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m.]

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Kelly Fisher

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: