MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 30, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:13 a.m., on Wednesday, April 30, 2003.  Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman

Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mr. Chad Christensen

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Pete Goicoechea

Mr. Tom Grady

Mr. Joe Hardy

Mr. Ron Knecht

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Bob McCleary

Ms. Peggy Pierce

Ms. Valerie Weber

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Maggie Carlton, Senatorial District 2, Clark County

Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District 7, Clark County

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel

Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Tony Sanchez, President, Latin Chamber of Commerce, Clark County

Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Bob Roshak, Sergeant, Las Vegas Metro Police Department

John Sande, Nevada Bankers’ Association

Berenice Rendon, Consul, Consulate of Mexico, Las Vegas

Kimberly McDonald, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

Patrick Smith, City of Las Vegas

Laura Mijanovich, American Civil Liberties Union

Janine Hansen, Eagle Forum

David Schumann, American Independent Party

John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly

Lynn Chapman, Nevada Families Education Foundation

Alan Culver, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement

Dorothy Holmes-Nash, Department of Corrections

James Vilt, Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center

 

 

Chairman Manendo welcomed all Committee members and guests to the Committee on Government Affairs and called the meeting to order at 8:13 a.m.  The roll was called, and he directed the secretary to mark members present upon their arrival.  The Committee reviewed the agenda at the Chair’s direction.  He also remarked to the guests and those listening on the World Wide Web that the Committee occasionally took a few moments to lighten up the proceedings.  Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on Senate Bill 312.

 

Senate Bill 312 (1st Reprint):  Authorizes state and local governmental entities to accept consular identification card for purpose of identifying person under certain circumstances. (BDR 19-823)

 

Senator Maggie Carlton, Senate District 2, thanked the Committee for scheduling the bill at a time that worked well for her.  She was prepared, she remarked, to walk the Committee through the bill adding explanations as each section warranted.  After her testimony, with the Chairman’s permission, she would hope to return to her own committee, the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor.  Mr. Tony Sanchez, she reported, would be staying and would remain available to discuss any concerns that were brought up after her departure.

 

Senator Carlton proceeded to discuss the bill.  The original idea for the bill was brought to her through Metro Police in Las Vegas.  The bill described a procedure that Metro Police developed and was using; Senator Carlton stated that she thought it was very good, and it was working well.  She thought that a Senate bill would bring it to the attention of others and that the procedure would be applicable elsewhere in Nevada where needed.

 

In the second part of the Act, the bill stated and clarified that the presentation of a Consular identification card did not, by itself, convey any entitlement to any benefits.  It was one of the major concerns addressed in the Senate.

 

Senate Bill 312 had been amended on the Senate side of the Legislature, she remarked, but had not been reprinted.  The amendment made acceptance of the card totally permissive and enabling.  That was always the intent of the bill, she affirmed.  The bill came from the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, moved to the Floor, several legislators signed on, and she took the bill to the Senate hearing with an amendment in hand, as there was not time to redraft the bill to make it clearly permissive.

 

Senator Carlton continued her testimony.  Originally, the bill began its journey with just a few sponsors, but the Senate Government Affairs Committee felt so strongly about it that they unanimously requested that their names be added to the bill.  You will note their names at the top of the bill, she stated.

 

Basically, Senate Bill 312 was truly a piece of enabling legislation, she declared.  It allowed anyone who accepted an identification card that was regulated in any way, permission to accept the Consular identification card as identification for that person as a Mexican national.  The bill stated that the card must come from a Consulate that was located within the state.  There was a Mexican Consulate located in southern Nevada; the personnel came to northern Nevada a couple of times each month to accept applications. 

 

A handout was then distributed to each assemblyperson on the Committee (Exhibit C).  The handout was an explanation of the card, how the card would be obtained, and a list of the entities who were looking at the card as valid for identification purposes only, or who currently accepted the card as valid.  The Chairman was given an actual Consular identification card, stated Senator Carlton, along with a plastic sleeve that can be used to discern whether the card was valid or fraudulent.  A flashlight had also been provided to the Chair, and the easiest way to tell if the card was genuine was to shine the light on the face of the person on the card.  An emblem would then be noticeable as the color of the card and the face changed in light.  Any person wishing to verify the genuineness of the card would be able to do so.

 

On page 2, Senate Bill 312 listed the requirements to obtain the card.  The Consul in Nevada, Berenice Rendon, was available through video conferencing provided during the hearing in Las Vegas to discuss the procedures more thoroughly.  It was also stated in the Senate that the Mexican Consulate had been lobbying for the bill.  That was not a true statement.  Senator Carlton contacted her, the two met, and Senator Carlton assured the Committee that the Consul had broken no rules nor had she stepped beyond her bounds.

 

The last part of Exhibit C gave the Committee members a list of those organizations that currently accepted the card, and the purpose behind their acceptance.  She asked the Committee to read the list before making a decision about the bill.

 

In closing, Senator Carlton clarified that, regardless of what some groups had said about the card, the card did support the policy of security, because it did help identify, confidently and quickly, Mexican nationals within our borders.  She did not see the bill as a burdensome security issue, because it had been made totally permissive.  If one felt, for security reasons as an entity in this state, that one did not wish to accept the card, no one would be obligated to do so.  It was purely permissive.

 

Tony Sanchez, President, Latin Chamber of Commerce in southern Nevada, spoke in support of Senate Bill 312.  The Latin Chamber of Commerce was now the third largest Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in the west and in the top fifteen of the nation.  That information was solely to emphasize the rapidly growing Latino population in southern Nevada.  When Senator Carlton approached the Chamber with the legislation, it was something that was immediately seen as very beneficial, something that the business community, long recognized by the Latin Chamber of Commerce, definitely needed.

 

Mr. Sanchez noted that the Committee would hear testimony, as the Senate had, that about two years ago, banks began accepting the “Matricula” card as a form of identification.  Across the country, people who distrusted the government system and did not have identification to open bank accounts were victims of many incidents of crime.  People referred to them as “walking ATMs,” because they would keep their money on their persons.  There would be high incidents of robberies on paydays.  Wells Fargo, City Bank, Bank of America, and others recognized the cards as valid two years ago.  To their credit, it was a good business measure and was something the banks had had wonderful success with since then.

 

It was important to emphasize what the legislation would not do.  There had been much misinformation passed around.  What the legislation would not do was entitle people in the country illegally to obtain government benefits.  Anything heard to the contrary, Mr. Sanchez emphasized, was factually incorrect.  It did not allow people to get welfare benefits or to get a driver’s license, but it did allow people to get a police report, to file a police report, to get a prescription, to go to a hospital, to check out a book, and, in addition, to access the banking system.  He stated his readiness to answer questions and to respond to concerns.

 

Assemblyman Williams asked Senator Carlton about her conversations regarding the proposed Senate Bill 312 being permissive.  He wondered how policies would be enacted under this legislation, and what steps would be taken to do that. 

 

Senator Carlton believed, she said, that each entity that accepted different forms of identification would take a look at the legislation and the “Matricula” card and then decide whether that card would fit the criteria that determined the acceptability of other forms of identification.  The Mexican Consulate had made itself available to anyone who was interested in the card.  She encouraged Committee members to look at the last two pages of Exhibit C for a list of those who had decided the card did fit their criteria and for those who were currently considering whether it fit their criteria.  In private industry, acceptance would be determined by each business for itself.  City, county, and state entities were simply given permission to consider the card as acceptable identification. 

 

Assemblyman Williams, referring to the City of North Las Vegas, asked if such a city would be able to decide to use the card and would, in turn, need to give permission for businesses within its boundaries to consider using the card for identification purposes.  He was specifically concerned about businesses accepting the card for its stated purpose without the city knowing of or approving of its use.

 

Senator Carlton believed so, she stated.  If it were not regulated, as a state, a municipality, or an entity, what a business could or could not accept as a form of identification would remain its choice.  If the government did attempt to regulate what forms of identification would be acceptable, Senate Bill 312 would provide the permission to do so.

 

Assemblyman Williams further queried of Senator Carlton if the process were enacted in Las Vegas, would the City of Las Vegas, the city council and the mayor first have to approve going into this type of arrangement.  He expanded his question to include entities within the city itself.  Again, his concern was that businesses in cities would be able to use the Consular card without the city, itself, knowing it was in use as a form of identification and without the opportunity to set the parameters for its use.

 

Senator Carlton responded that Mr. Williams’ question was a very good one and that she remained unclear as to how municipalities would handle the actual implementation.  That had not been discussed previously.  When she had discussed Senate Bill 312 with Clark County, there had been no issue raised regarding the implementation.  She recalled no discussion about that.

 

Chairman Manendo reminded the Committee that there were many people from different entities who would be heard on Senate Bill 312.

 

Assemblyman Williams asked if the legislators were sure that the local governments would need to approve, through council action, the use of the card for identification purposes.  Secondly, he asked for the Committee and witnesses to explore with him what would happen if those governmental entities did need to stipulate that the Consular cards were a valid form of identification and that the city councils did need to give permission for its use.  He wondered what the effect would be if the City of Las Vegas agreed to the card’s use, but the City of North Las Vegas did not.  He was curious as to whether immigrants would move more readily into areas or shop more regularly in areas where the card was accepted as a valid form of identification.

 

Senator Carlton stated her belief that there would be no adverse reaction such as Mr. Williams suggested.  The legislation was just enabling.  Each entity would be allowed to decide on its own how to best handle a situation.  Some entities were, in fact, guided by legislative rules and regulations, but many were not.  The bill was written to be as flexible as possible so as to provide for entities to operate, with respect to identification, in the way that best suited themselves.  The bill would not inhibit nor inflict the process on any entity.

 

Assemblyman Williams again questioned Senator Carlton about Senate Bill 312.  He understood her to say that the intent of the bill was to provide more security for people, and the process then allowed people to function in a more dignified way.  If the state was looking at the security of Nevada’s borders, and, if five cities in Nevada accepted the card but the rest of the cities did not, where those gaps in Nevada’s borders existed would lessen our security concept.  With 17 counties, if 2 counties did not adopt the card for identification purposes, people would move their businesses to counties where use of the card was not happening.  He continued to ponder where it was in the process that the legislators would feel they were representing the entire state.

 

Senator Carlton responded that the total intent of the bill was simply to enable entities, not to make them do something they did not want to do.  Clark County could accept the card in certain areas, but not in others, because they did not feel it fit the criteria they would need in those areas.  That would be one of those instances where the public would contact their representatives to say that they were very interested in the use of the card, that they liked it, and that there were a number of businesses in the state that were very comfortable with it.  It would be a matter of education for all of those entities to help them understand what the card actually stood for.  It stood for a Mexican national who lived in our country who would present the card to a business to say, “This is who I am, you can believe that this is who I am, because this card stands behind me in the same way you would present identification within another country to say that you were a proud American, and this is who I am.”

 

Assemblyman Williams stated he totally agreed with that.  People needed, he said, a sense of self-worth, confidence, and security.  His curiosity was raised, however, as to how the process would work.

 

Tony Sanchez responded.  It was his belief, he stated, that there was an element of permissiveness in Senate Bill 312.  Metro Police Department in Las Vegas, for example, was already accepting the Consular card as a valid form of identification.  The bill would provide an umbrella, if a city or county were challenged, because they were accepting the card as a valid form of identification.  Groups that were currently accepting and using the card as a form of identification would be presenting testimony shortly so that Committee members would become more familiar with the practical use of the card.

 

Chairman Manendo asked for clarification as to the use of the card to obtain a driver’s license.

 

Tony Sanchez reaffirmed that the Consular card would not allow one to obtain a driver’s license, to get welfare benefits, or to get a job if one were not here legally.  He hoped he had dispelled those myths, although he remained certain that there were still others to be heard.  The card’s use was not a right-to-work issue, and it did not make one legal that was not here in the United States legally.

 

Chairman Manendo stated that a great deal of electronic mail had been received about the bill.  There was a huge perception, the Chair stated, that the card would replace a driver’s license for certain people.  The Committee members were spending much time attempting to correct that misperception.

 

Tony Sanchez remarked that there were states that were dealing with the “driver license issues,” but Nevada was not one, and Senate Bill 312 would not change that.  He asked Committee members to ask themselves if the criticisms that they were hearing were issues occurring in Nevada, or were they issues from elsewhere in the country.  He believed that most were not reflective of “our state.”

 

Chairman Manendo stated that many of the e-mails received had come from California.

 

Senator Carlton stated that she had heard another issue while the bill was discussed in the Senate.  At the federal level, the policy had been slowed down and placed on hold.  That slowdown was not directly related to the issue of Consular cards and their use as valid identification.  Rather, many issues were on hold as a result of developing the Home Land Security offices, procedures, and programs.  Offices were being rearranged, personnel were being shifted, and the many changes had created the slowdowns that many issues were experiencing currently.  There were no known technical difficulties; it was a complication of having to structure an entirely new federal division.

 

The Senator wanted to alert the Committee members to the possibility of hearing that the federal government was taking a second look at the use of a Consular card as valid identification.  In her research, she stated, she had not found evidence that would support that conclusion at all.  Home security issues were paramount at the federal level, and other issues would need to wait.

 

Assemblyman Collins asked for immediate clarification as to whether the card would or could give a person the right to vote.  He stated that he only needed a short answer.  When both Tony Sanchez and Senator Carlton responded that it did not, Assemblyman Collins reported that he would use that to respond to the majority of his e-mails as they had been focused on that. 

 

The Senator continued by urging the Committee members to read the last three to four lines of the bill, as they clarified that.  The way the Senator responded to e-mails like the one Assemblyman Collins referred to, she said, was to insert the act of the bill into the response of the e-mail.  She felt, she stated, that doing so alleviated many people’s fears.

 

Assemblyman Grady followed up on questions raised by Mr. Williams.  If Clark County, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas Metro Police, Washoe County, Nevada Highway Patrol, the banks, and the casinos were all accepting the card currently, the legislation did not seem to be necessary, according to Mr. Grady.

 

Senator Carlton reported that the state might regulate, as a state, what identifications some entities would be able to accept or not accept.  It was difficult to research and to be certain that every one was included that one would want to address.  By making the acceptance of the card very open and enabling, the state would be allowing acceptance of the Consular card if the state were to regulate or stipulate what kinds of identification would be accepted.  By passing Senate Bill 312, no one would fall through the cracks; no one would be missed.  “Too often,” the Senator replied, “We believed we had thoroughly covered a subject through legislation only to return for another session having discovered parts missing, loopholes that existed, or a particular issue was not addressed adequately.”  Senate Bill 312 would encompass everyone in the state and would make the use of the Consular card totally permissive.

 

Tony Sanchez followed up by stating that the bill would provide authorization and an umbrella if those entities were challenged for their acceptance of the card.  It was also pointed out that nowhere in the bill was the word “Mexican” used.  The statement made was inclusive; “’Consular identification card’ means an identification card issued by a Consulate of a foreign government, which Consulate is located within the State of Nevada.”  Currently, Mexico was the only country that had an official Consulate in the state.

 

Assemblywoman Weber expressed curiosity as to whether border states used the same or a similar form of identification and if the identification was acceptable from state to state should Mexican nationals move.

 

Senator Carlton responded that a Consul issued the Mexican Consulate identification card, and there were a number of Mexican Consulates located across the country.  It was the same card and the same technology; therefore, the card would be used for identification purposes wherever a person was within the borders of the United States.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea inquired about the issuance of an identification card through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the potential for using that particular identification card to obtain a driver’s license at some future time.

 

Senator Carlton clarified that the Consular identification card was not issued by the DMV.  Only the Mexican Consulate would be able to issue that particular form of identification.  The Mexican national would present himself to the Consulate, provide the appropriate documentation, the Consulate would investigate and interview the individual in person, and the card would then be issued through them.  The driver’s license provision was contained in the bill, because, whenever one listed forms of identification, one was required to include a format to hold what you were discussing in context.  Although the card would not duplicate the use of the driver’s license and had no benefits of such a license, it would be recognized as an acceptable form of picture identification in much the same way a driver’s license was accepted and recognized.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea had heard, he stated, that a driver’s license could be procured in California with the use of the Consular card as identification.

 

Mr. Sanchez indicated that several states, Virginia, Utah, Idaho, California, and others, had expressly authorized, in legislation, that one would be allowed to use the Consular card for the purpose of obtaining a driver’s license.  That would be the difference between other states and Nevada.  That would not occur in Nevada through Senate Bill 312.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea raised another issue by asking about a person who accessed DMV services for the purpose of obtaining a driver’s license and who had, on his person, both a Consular identification card and a California driver’s license.  He would assume, at that time, the state of Nevada would allow that individual to turn in the California driver’s license in exchange for a Nevada driver’s license.

 

Mr. Sanchez stated that the Nevada DMV would still require proof of citizenship before one would be able to obtain a driver’s license.  The Consular card would not be a form that would indicate citizenship in the United States.

 

Assemblyman Knecht declared that he did not understand that proof of citizenship was needed to acquire a driver’s license. 

 

Tony Sanchez thought that a copy of a birth certificate was required, he stated.  He was not sure whether DMV had a box, as did many government institutions that was to be checked if one were a United States citizen.  He further testified that he would be very surprised if DMV were to testify to the contrary.  He did not believe, he continued, that a person with a driver’s license from another state would automatically qualify for a driver’s license in the state of Nevada.

 

Senator Carlton returned to the permissive, enabling content of Senate Bill 312.  In her conversations with the representative from DMV, Dana Mathiesen, in her office, the enabling portion of the bill was very comfortable for the DMV.  They looked at the bill and stated that the bill did not place them in an awkward situation that would require them to accept something or undo something in their regulations.  Senator Carlton continued by describing her personal experience of having taken her daughters to get their driver’s licenses.  She remembered that she was required to produce birth certificates, social security cards, and a number of different pieces of documentation.  The safeguards were built into the system to address Mr. Knecht’s concerns, she stated.

 

Assemblyman Knecht believed the ultimate question was to determine if there was a circumstance under which a person with a Consular card could get a driver’s license, but, without a Consular card, that same person could not obtain one. 

 

Senator Carlton restated that she felt very comfortable in saying to the Committee that she did not believe that the scenario described by Mr. Knecht would happen.

 

Mr. Knecht wondered if there was any circumstance under which a person with the Consular card would be able to register to vote but, without the card, would not be allowed to register to vote.

 

Again, Senator Carlton testified to her comfort level regarding S.B. 312 and to her belief that such would not happen with use of the Consular card.  She referred Mr. Knecht back to the Act of the bill in her belief that the Act addressed all of those concerns.

 

Assemblyman Knecht thanked Senator Carlton and Mr. Sanchez, but he felt he had to say more.  He understood the permissive nature of the bill, but, on its face, it did not seem to rule out the possibilities he had questions about.  He would be greatly comforted if someone from DMV testified to the same effect as had Mr. Sanchez and Senator Carlton.  Although he accepted the Senator’s representation, he would have to act on information he felt was less than thorough if DMV was not available.  Similarly, he would have liked to hear from someone from the Secretary of State’s Office on voter registration. 

 

In response to what his colleagues had asked regarding requirements to obtain a driver’s license, Assemblyman Christensen spoke of a German exchange student he and his family had living with them in the past.  The student was able to obtain a Nevada driver’s license without being a citizen of the United States.  The issue that Mr. Christensen had was related to how the police would use the Consular card for identification.  If the card were for those present in the country illegally and a law enforcement officer were to come into contact with someone with only this form of identification, he queried what the police would do in terms of contacting immigration authorities or others who might have a need or a desire to know.

 

Chairman Manendo reminded the Committee that there people from law enforcement signed in to speak about S.B. 312.  Mr. Christensen, because of that, decided to wait for that testimony.

 

Tony Sanchez responded by explaining that several years ago, the Metro Police in Las Vegas created a program called “The Heart Program,” a Hispanic-American resource team or response team.  Basically, that was a unit publicized widely in Nevada and created by volunteer officers who recognized, from their experiences in the community, that crimes were being committed against people who did not have their American citizenship and were afraid to report crimes.  The fear was a result of those people remaining “undocumented.”  There were many instances of domestic violence, husband against wife, and other crimes perpetrated and left unreported for fear of deportation.  The created unit ceased inquiring about citizenship; that was not its purpose.  The main policy rationale was to end the commission of crimes against the undocumented populations.  That seemed to be a very progressive policy in that respect. 

 

Jim Nadeau, representing Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, reported that, currently, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office allowed the Consular identification card to be used for visitation to inmates and in certain other areas for the purpose of identification.  The card also identified a person making a report.  Work card issuance required further identification and fingerprinting.  Law enforcement would use the Consular identification card as they would any other identification.  It would not give an individual permission to drive, to carry a concealed weapon, or anything of that nature, but would be used simply as a form of identification.  That would be similar to the use of a passport to identify foreign visitors.

 

Assemblyman Williams asked Mr. Nadeau if the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association had agreed to support S.B. 312.

 

Jim Nadeau responded that he did not know the answer to Mr. Williams’ question at the current time.

 

Assemblyman Williams then inquired whether the members of the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association had met as a group and taken action on such issues.

 

Jim Nadeau replied that, typically, there would be a meeting to review the issue, then a vote would be taken as to whether they would, as a block, endorse a certain issue.  Individually, separate agencies were able to make separate and independent decisions, and, usually, if there were a vote of some nature, it would be that the group was not endorsing that particular issue.

 

Assemblyman Williams then asked for confirmation that the position of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office was to not wait for the group opinion but to move forward and do it on its own.

 

Mr. Nadeau responded that the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office had been accepting that approach for some time because of the nature of their business.  Identification was needed, and, in many instances, the Consular card was the only identification available.

 

It would seem pointless, stated Mr. Williams, to present S.B. 312 to the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association at this point.

 

Assemblyman Hardy spoke of holding a different viewpoint.  If the identification card were held by an illegal alien and that individual were to present the card to a Metro officer, he inquired as to what would be the obligation of the Metro officer to report to the Department of Naturalization or to Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).  The nonreporting to INS would seem to suggest that the officer might be derelict in his duties regarding borders.  He also wondered if, perhaps, Metro officers were developing a repository of information that would, potentially, be used against someone.  Those with the Consular identification would appear to be those in the country illegally.  He wondered if that very identification card would target the undocumented to eventually round them up.

 

Tony Sanchez restated the issue.  He said that there might still be a concern, if he understood Mr. Hardy, that a list of undocumented individuals would be developed through the use of the Consular card, resulting in their roundup should INS or other governmental agencies choose to do so.  Mr. Sanchez would like the Consul in Las Vegas to respond, but, from his understanding, the list generated would remain the property of the police department for their records only.  Mr. Sanchez also stated his belief that the law did not require an individual who knew of the illegal status of another, to turn him in.  To clarify, for the record, Mr. Sanchez reminded members of the Committee that a Consular identification card was not just issued to undocumented Mexican nationals.  It would be a form of identification for any Mexican national.

 

Assemblyman Hardy remarked that, if he were getting on an airplane, he would be required to have photo identification on his person.  To get through Mexican customs, he would need a photo identification.  In the bill, it stipulated that the card did not permit a person without a license to drive.  An individual would be able, however, to obtain a library card.  He still had questions:

 

• At what point did the statutes declare the uses of the card?
• Were there other countries that had a technology that would issue a card for the purpose of identification that would be so simple to duplicate?

 

Tony Sanchez reminded the Committee that under federal law, one did not have to be a citizen to obtain an education through our public education system. 

 

Senator Carlton reported to the Committee that the use of the Consular card as a photo identification for the purpose of getting on an airplane was a much-discussed concern in the Senate.  The “blue book bible” that each legislator had access to that listed all of the lobbyists who worked during each session was a resource of considerable help.  She talked with lobbyists who represented airlines about that very issue.  She continued her testimony by stating that airlines were able to choose the types of identification that would work best for them.  Over the next few years, those issues would be addressed again.  Anything done at the federal level would, of course, supercede what was done in Nevada.  Anything done at the state level could, of course, be voted out should the airlines not approve of the use of the Consular card.

 

Assemblyman Hardy requested information as to whether Mexican nationals in Mexico had a photo identification card similar to or the same as the Consular card.

 

Senator Carlton requested of the Chair that the Consul in Las Vegas be allowed to respond to questions such as Mr. Hardy’s. 

 

Jim Nadeau had spoken to Sergeant Roshak who indicated that the Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, as a group, had discussed the bill and did support it.

 

Assemblyman Williams confirmed that it was good to know that there was collective agreement in support of S.B. 312.

 

Sergeant Bob Roshak, Las Vegas Metro Police, Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, testified that both groups were in support of the bill.  Currently, Las Vegas used the Consular identification card in the Las Vegas area.  Officers there found that it did assist the police and the citizens attempting to resolve problems such as filing reports, doing paperwork, or identifying someone if arrested.  It was also helpful if a person’s cash were taken.  The Consular card provided information so that checks could be cashed, and, in so many other ways, it had been helpful. 

 

Assemblywoman Weber had a concern about the reluctance of the undocumented people to sign up during the Census of 2000, because of the possibility that INS would access the information and would attempt to deport them.  Although that fear might still exist, she looked through the packet of information provided by Senator Carlton and Mr. Sanchez, and she noted that one of the requirements for the Consular card was to present an original birth certificate.  She was puzzled, as she felt it would be unusual for a person entering any country illegally to have possession of an original birth certificate.

 

Senator Carlton answered that it was her understanding that when one presented oneself to the Consulate and an original birth certificate was not immediately available, one would fill out the appropriate paperwork and the Consulate staff would get the birth certificate for that individual or a member of the family.

 

Assemblyman Williams asked Senator Carlton why the bill was left permissive rather than mandate the acceptance of the card for identification purposes.  It would make more clear to all in Nevada where the card would be accepted and where it would not.  Then, if a person moved from one community to another, there would be much less confusion as to where to use the card and where not to use it. 

 

Senator Carlton proclaimed there were so many criteria and instances in which people must show identification that, to mandate it, in some ways, would be to inflict a process on entities and businesses, which would have been unintentional.  The sponsors of the bill simply wanted the Consular card to be looked at as a form of identification if a business or agency felt that the card met its criteria.  To review all possible criteria for each entity would have been too overwhelming and might have been impossible, in the end, to accomplish.  It would not have been prudent, in view of the security issues following September 11, 2001, to mandate the acceptance of the Consular card anywhere.  Security was such an enormous issue and required so much revamping and attention, a mandate would not be wise in the state or anywhere across the country.  Senator Carlton also stated that it would not be wise to attempt to regulate all businesses in terms of the criteria each used to determine their own process for accepting identification.  If businesses were not regulated, she firmly believed, there would not be any way to mandate the intent of the bill on private business.

 

Assemblyman Williams referred back to her earlier testimony as he recalled Senator Carlton speaking about presenting the intent of the bill to the City of Las Vegas, City of North Las Vegas, the City of Henderson, and the City of Mesquite.  He stated that he represented people in the City of Las Vegas and in the City of North Las Vegas.

 

To look at it from the other side, if he were to vote for the bill, and the City of Las Vegas and the City of North Las Vegas governments voted to not accept the Consular card, the constituents that he represented in those two cities would say, “You were on the Government Affairs Committee which had a mission to regulate local government.  Why would you vote for something that you did not know we would accept?  You sat in Committee, read the document, and, knowing that we were reviewing it and had not taken a position on it, you voted for it, rather than vote the will of your constituents?”  He asked the Senator for a response in such an instance.

 

Senator Carlton noted that she also represented multijurisdictions.  She had a district that represented part of Clark County, part of the City of Las Vegas, and part of North Las Vegas.  Her answer to those people would be that she allowed each particular entity to make the decision to revamp the bill.  She did not tell anyone that he or she had to do something.  She did not negate the opinion that any elected representative had at that level; she allowed them to take a look at it, voice their concerns with their elected representative, and to tell them that the issue was one that they wished the elected body would look at.  It allowed the citizens to become involved and to raise their voices.  It allowed local entities to make the decision that best suited their own constituents.

 

Assemblyman Williams believed, he said, that the local governments should take a position on the issue.  The fact was that, since the information was presented to the Committee, the Committee members had a right to question it.  Just as he had asked Mr. Nadeau if the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association had adopted the procedure as it was listed in Exhibit C, he felt more comfortable currently knowing that they had.  By the same token, he would feel more comfortable knowing that the two cities he represented had taken a position, either “yea” or “nay.” 

 

Assemblyman Hardy stated that he and Mr. Williams were thinking along the same lines.  He saw the issue as a natural for consideration by the Southern Nevada Planning Coalition, where they would have an opportunity to sit together and come up with some pervasive, all-encompassing philosophy about how it would be handled.  He believed that there was a mechanism that would be able to cross city borders and that would allow jurisdictions to establish a level of comfort.  That would be a forum that he would suggest to take a look at the issue.  From what the Senator had said, she had allayed many fears, allayed many worries, and had taken care of matters with which the Committee members still needed to get a comfort level.

 

Senator Carlton received the Chair’s permission to return to her Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor.

 

John Sande, Nevada Bankers’ Association, testified that several member banks, mainly the larger banks, had implemented the program outlined in S.B. 312 and had found it to be very successful.  On behalf of the Bankers Association, he stood in support of the legislation.

 

Consul Berenice Rendon, in Las Vegas, testified via teleconference that the Consulate of Mexico opened a year ago, during 2002, and its function was to serve the growing Mexican community that lived and contributed, with their work, to the state of Nevada.  The Consulate also was attempting to develop a closer relationship between the state of Nevada and with Mexico.  In that context, one of the programs that had been developed was the Consular identification program, especially after the tragic events following September 11, 2001.

 

The Mexican government was very concerned about the identification of the large population of Mexican nationals in the United States.  The government of Mexico decided to come up with the new, digitalized document that was called the “Matricula Consular.”  That meant only that it was the registration for the official records of Mexican nationals living in the United States.  The function was an international function.  The purpose of the registration was to enable the Mexican government to provide protection to the Mexican population in the U.S.  The purpose was also to allow that population to access Consular services.  As was mentioned, the Consulate had developed great cooperation with Metro Police Department and with the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, because those were the areas where most of the nationals were living. 

 

Consul Rendon stated that the Mexican population kept growing, and the Mexican government thought it was a good idea to bring the registration process to the attention of the banks.  They had been accepting the card for some time now.  It had worked very well.  All over the United States, the card had been accepted as a valid proof of identification.  That was the sole purpose of the card.  There was no effort to get benefits for the Mexican nationals that they were not entitled to.  As it was mentioned, the card was issued to any Mexican national, not only the undocumented; those Mexican nationals living in the United States with a permanent resident card were also issued Consular identification cards.  There were also dual-nationals with dual citizenship in the United States, as well as in Mexico, who were issued the Consular cards.

 

The process for obtaining the identification card was very strict.  The Consulate identified their nationals in order to give credibility to the program.  The card was not issued to anyone who did not have the proper requirements to obtain one.  There was a question about birth certificates.  Mexican nationals often did bring their birth certificates with them, but, if not, the certificates were sent to them at the request of the individual.  The Consulate was also able to obtain the birth certificates for them.  The Consulate verified, always, the information the nationals provided, if there was any doubt.  Through the interview process, one would know who was a national from Mexico.  The Consulate personnel were very strict throughout the process. 

 

Consul Rendon added that the Metro Police Department in Las Vegas investigated the Consulate’s process.  Their decision was that the process complied with the security issues.  The Consulate also regarded it as a security issue for the Mexican nationals.  It did not allow anyone to have a driver’s license, because, for a driver’s license, one needed a social security number.  The Consular card did not allow anyone to register to vote, because, for that, one would need to be a citizen of the United States.  All of the concerns mentioned had been addressed.  The Consulate and the Mexican government only wanted the security for the purpose of identifying their nationals.

 

Assemblyman Knecht asked the Consul if the Consular ID card was issued only in the United States.  Consul Rendon answered that the Consular ID was only issued to Mexican nationals living outside of Mexico, and the only country the Mexican government issued the card in was the United States.  That was due to the size of the Mexican population in the U.S.  There were 47 Consulates in the United States, and all used the same technology and the same criteria to issue the card.

 

Assemblyman Williams wondered what would happen to a person on foot with no identification when stopped by the police and was questioned and detained.  He further questioned the differences in procedures and consequences between one individual with Consular identification and one without it when both were of Mexican descent.  He asked for a clearer understanding of how those people accessed resources that would be of help to them. 

 

Sergeant Roshak explained that persons who were booked, who had identification, made it much easier to process.  If someone was arrested without identification, not identifiable through SCOPE (Shared Computer Operation for Protection and Enforcement), and had no work card, that individual would be fingerprinted, and the prints would be run.  It would take considerably longer to determine that the individual was not a “John Doe” but whatever their true name was.  Identification made every process much less difficult.

 

Assemblyman Williams described a scenario in which a person called the police to report two men standing in front of a 7-11 store who looked rather suspicious.  The police came to find that one of the men had identification.  On the following day, the police came again, and the same man was there but without identification.  He asked whether the police would take that individual into custody to determine identification.

 

Sergeant Roshak responded that the Nevada law stated that one must verbally identify himself.  The police cannot arrest people because they did not have identification on them.  Under the circumstances described by Mr. Williams, even though they appeared to be suspicious, unless a law had been broken that came to the attention of the police, no action, other than completion of a field interview card, would be taken.  No one would be arrested as a result of not having an identification card.

 

Assemblyman Williams speculated that police departments would find the Consular identification card saved the departments money, because they did not need to do a fingerprint check on everyone arrested who appeared to be a Mexican national.  As Sergeant Roshak had mentioned and Mr. Williams confirmed, a person with the Consular ID would not need to be fingerprinted for the sole purpose of attaining his or her identity.  Using less time and less manpower would save money.  He asked if that was one of the reasons why police departments adopted the program.

 

Sergeant Roshak responded that the departments would save money.  Another reason why it was adopted, however, was because of concerns expressed to Metro and to the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association by the Consul that Mexican nationals were too frequently victims of crime, had no identification, and could not receive copies of reports because they did not have identification.  The purpose of accepting the Consular cards as valid IDs was to afford those people a means to present identification so that the police officers would be able to assist them.  Basically, it was a win-win situation for the public and for the police.

 

Kimberly McDonald, representing the City of North Las Vegas, stated that it was the position of the City of North Las Vegas that it stood in support of Senate Bill 312.  The City Attorney’s Office, as well as the City of North Las Vegas Police Department, also supported the measure.  Should the City of North Las Vegas decide to adopt the program, the city council would have to adopt a resolution that would, in essence, state that the Consular cards would be used as authorized identification.

 

Assemblyman Williams wondered how it would be handled if the city council voted against the resolution, and the police department already used the process.

 

Ms. McDonald stated that, to her knowledge, the request was made to use the program in October 2002.  She had researched the program and had noted that the resolution would need to be adopted by the Council.  From there, direction would be given to the city manager as well as the chief of the North Las Vegas Police Department.

 

Assemblyman Williams apologized, because he had not been clear in his question to Ms. McDonald.  His question concerned the city council that might vote against acceptance of the program.  The council might clash with the police department that had already been using the program.  If there were a clash, he wondered how it would be handled.

 

Ms. McDonald stated that she was not aware that the police department in North Las Vegas was using the Consular cards for identification purposes or was authorized by the council to accept that form of identification.  If that were to occur, the police would have to cease, because the city council set the policy, and the city manager and other entities implemented it.  To her knowledge, the City of North Las Vegas was not currently using the program.  The city did, however, support the measure, as it was enabling language.

 

Patrick Smith, representing the City of Las Vegas, affirmed that the City of Las Vegas did support the bill, because it was enabling.  Currently, the cards were used for identification purposes and for the business licensing process.  They looked forward to exploring future uses.

 

Laura Mijanovich, representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, was testifying, also, on her own behalf as a member of the Latino immigrant community.  She had prepared written testimony (Exhibit D) and urged the Committee to support S. B. 312.  The proposed bill confirmed the reality of the illegal immigrant labor force in the United States, as well as in Nevada. 

 

There was an estimated illegal immigrant population of 5 million to 7 million people in the United States, and its enormous contribution to the national economy was unquestionable.  The widely spread reliance on the illegal immigrant labor force by businesses across the nation was also undeniable.  The need to identify and document workers, for many valid reasons, included the need to simplify business and enhance security for workers within the state of Nevada.

 

She reemphasized that Senate Bill 312 was not an attempt to legalize the status of illegal immigrants.  The drafted language of the bill made that clear.  Consular identification cards simply represented a form of official and reliable proof of an immigrant’s origin.  Mexican Consulates had been issuing the cards since 1871, and approximately 1 million of those cards had been issued in the previous year nationwide. 

 

The cards were reliable.  They were laminated, they were tamper-proof, and they were presently being used and accepted in a multitude of business transactions including banking, savings, checking accounts, mortgages, phone bills, cable television, et cetera.

 

Many law enforcement agencies had accepted the Consular card as official identification for the otherwise undocumented immigrant.  The Consular identification card had allowed and simplified access to the increasingly greater immigrant market in the United States.  For those reasons and others, she urged the Committee’s support of Senate Bill 312.

 

Chairman Manendo reported to the Committee and guests that the City of Reno was in support of the bill.

 

Assemblyman Williams asked the staff if Senate Bill 312 actually gave illegal immigrants a legal identification and if identification cards determined as “legal documentation” changed a person’s status from illegal to legal.

 

Eileen O’Grady, Legal Analyst to the Committee, stated that the identification card would not change the status of an individual from illegal to legal.

 

Assemblyman Williams then stated that the illegal immigrants would be illegal immigrants with identification and could just as well be illegal immigrants without identification.

 

Chairman Manendo affirmed that the bill would allow illegal immigrants to hold identification so that they would be able to cash checks.

 

Ms. O’Grady affirmed that his interpretation as correct.

 

Assemblyman Knecht spoke to follow up on the last question of Mr. Williams and the Chair’s comment.  He asked staff to clarify that whatever benefits accrued to legal residents of the country, the idea that an illegal resident of the country could cash checks and execute other kinds of business would mean that Senate Bill 312 would make it easier to operate and live illegally in the United States. 

 

Eileen O’Grady stated that all that Senate Bill 312 did was to provide an identification card for certain people to use.  She would not speculate on the effect of the bill as requested by Mr. Knecht.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce affirmed that the testimony had clarified for her that the banks were already accepting the Consular card as valid identification.  She saw that as very important, because there were so many people in the community walking around with large amounts of cash on their person.  Because they were unable to get a bank account, those situations asked for a crime wave, from her point of view.  She was firmly convinced that would not be in the interest of society.  The card would not make an undocumented worker into someone in the country legally.  She was compelled by the testimony of law enforcement personnel who told the Committee that the card made it much easier for the police to do their jobs in their business of fighting crime.  It encouraged people to come forward and to fill out police reports.  She stated that she supported the bill and thought its permissiveness was extremely important, as it would allow each governmental entity to choose to accept or not accept the card.

 

Chairman Manendo stated that the Committee would not make a motion regarding the bill at that time.  There were still many unanswered questions.  Speaking to the Consul in Las Vegas, Mr. Grady, Mr. Williams, and the Chair asked about a person in the country illegally, who was working and had a green card; that green card would be another source for identification, they supposed.

 

Consul Rendon replied that, in some cases, the green card would be useful for identification for those people who had one.  That would mean that they were permanent residents in the United States.  It was a federal document.  At the same time, the immigration authorities in the United States had different cards that allowed Mexican nationals to work in the U.S.  Sometimes it was attached to one’s visa and/or passport, but that work card had no picture on it.  The Consular card was to help those people who did not have any other proof of identification.  It was a document that had technology that made it tamperproof.  The Consul believed, she stated, that it was a critical document.  Sometimes, immigration documents consisted of just a card attached to one’s passport.  It was not enough, she said.

 

Chairman Manendo stated that the Consular ID cards would be more of a protection than other forms of identification that might or might not include a photo.  There were many sources, also, for people to buy false identification cards.

 

Consul Rendon stated that the availability of false cards was an issue for the Mexican government, also.  There were so many people who preyed on undocumented workers.  With the Consular card, it was an official ID issued by the Mexican government through the Consulates.  It was a legitimate form of ID, which cost less than $30, it was valid for 5 years, and documentation was required before the card was issued.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea inquired about the necessity of having a social security number to open a bank account.

 

Several people in the audience stated that he was correct in that assumption. 

 

Consul Rendon answered that people did not need a social security number; what was needed was the equivalent of a tax number that a bank would issue to a person who did not have a social security number.  The Consul herself did not have a social security number, because she was not allowed to have one, and she had bank accounts in the United States.

 

The Chair turned the microphone over to the opposition inviting those opposed to come forward in groups of three.

 

Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, stated that she had attended the hearing on Senate Bill 312 in the Senate and had, subsequently, done some research.  When she was looking into the issue of driver’s licenses, another lobbyist mentioned something to her that pointed her in a different direction for research purposes.  In the current law of the state, regarding the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), in NRS 483.3290, it stated that, in order to obtain a driver’s license in Nevada, one of the forms of ID one needed was a driver’s license issued by another state. 

 

On the Website for the DMV, Exhibit E, one would notice it listed the requirements that defined a resident as found in Nevada Revised Statutes 483.141.  Next to the bottom, the Web site listed a section titled “Proof of Identity & Social Security Number.”  As a first-time applicant for a Nevada driver’s license, instruction permit, or ID card, you would be required to provide your name, date of birth, and separate proof of your social security number, if one has been issued to you.  One did not have to provide a social security number if one had not been issued.  Illegal aliens were undocumented and had not been issued a social security number.  Under that same section, there were two boxes.  One listed those documents that were accepted as verification of name and date of birth.

 

Ms. Hansen stated that she continued to have questions.  In a news article, the General Services Administration (GSA) had suspended recognition of the “Matricula Consular” cards as identification, because they had not been issued by the United States (Exhibit F).  The cards, according to the article (Exhibit F), had been used in the past to obtain social services, establish bank accounts, and procure other services in the United States.  The article continued:

 

Those identity documents had been issued to hundreds of thousands of Mexicans living in the United States including those living here illegally.  The GSA suspension meant that cards would no longer be accepted for identification purposes at federal facilities.  Once the State Department and the GSA and others completed their investigation of the Consular card, a formal recommendation would be made to federal law enforcement and security agencies to insure the integrity of the information obtained in the cards and the security of the document itself.

 

Ms. Hansen added that there was federal legislation pending on whether or not to accept the Consular card at all.  She had provided the Committee with information received from Congressman Tom Tancredo, from the Immigration Reform Caucus (Exhibit G).  The information listed 33 states and noted their acceptance, or lack of acceptance, of the Consular card for identification, in order to issue a state ID or driver’s license.  Some of those that did accept the Consular card for that purpose included Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oregon.  That meant, if the Department of Motor Vehicle had to accept, as a form of identification, a driver’s license from another state, an individual with a license from one of those states would be able to use that driver’s license to come to Nevada and to obtain a driver’s license from Nevada.  That was the loophole in the statutes that stated that a driver’s license from another state would be surrendered to receive a driver’s license from Nevada. 

 

Janine Hansen then reported that she was examining the language in S.B. 483,placed there by the DMV, and she did not see in that information anything that would indicate that a driver’s license from any other state would not be accepted.  However, in Assemblyman Perkins’ bill, A.B. 441, which dealt with terrorism and security in the state of Nevada, it contained much language about DMV and driver’s licenses in particular. 

 

Ms. Hansen drew some conclusions as to why language about driver’s licenses was in that particular bill.  On page 21, Section 36, line 19, stated, “the Department of Motor Vehicles may refuse to accept a driver’s license or identification card from another state.”  She did not know if the state actually had the authority to do that, because, under the Constitution of the United States, in Article 4, Section 1, the Full Faith and Credit Clause required states to give full faith and credit “in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”  That implied, to her, that it would not be possible to refuse to accept driver’s licenses from other states.  Assemblyman Perkins’ bill had not passed, but it left the issue open. 

 

Ms. Hansen stated that Assemblyman Williams had brought up the issue that the Legislature was charged with making policy.  If that was the role of the Legislature, then legislators should make policy.  What the law allowed anyone to do, referencing S.B. 312, any local government, or local agency would be able to determine the acceptability of a Consular identification card on its own, including, on page 3, Section 3, beginning with subsection 1, “with respect to any activity or transaction in which a state agency accepts an identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles to identify a person, the state agency may also accept a Consular identification card to identify a person.”

 

One of Ms. Hansen’s concerns was that the Department of Motor Vehicles would fall within the definition of “a state agency” and would, therefore, have the right to determine, on its own, whether to accept the Consular identification card as adequate identification to issue a driver’s license after all.  She thought that the section referred to might well give DMV the authority to do just that.  If it did, the legislators needed to determine whether or not it was acceptable to give the department the authority to accept the Consular card.  Because the bill was permissive, continued Ms. Hansen, perhaps DMV would have that authority under Senate Bill 312.  To allow DMV, on its own, without hearings, without any representation, without accountability to the voters of Nevada, to make that decision would be “bad policy.”

 

In Senate Bill 312, “state agency” was defined as “every public agency, bureau, board, commission, department or division of the Executive Department of State Government.”  She assumed that included the Department of Motor Vehicles.  The bill would, thus, allow the DMV to determine for itself whether or not they would accept Consular identification cards as part of what they would accept to issue a driver’s license.  Although she was not sure of her interpretation, she stated that the legislators needed to be sure before the bill was considered for passage.  A policy regarding that definitely needed to be developed.

 

The status of an illegal alien, an undocumented worker, had not changed.  The bill, in all probability, would provide those who were not here legally under the laws of the United States with the means to continue their illegal status and to remove the appearance of being undocumented.

 

Another important issue, brought up by the Committee, was the concern about voter registration.  Ms. Hansen presented a copy of the voter registration form for the Committee to view (Exhibit H).  The voter registration spoke of first-time voters.  “You must vote in person at the next election if you use this form.”  That was because they wanted a voter to sign the form in person.

 

When a person filled out a voter registration form, the form displayed a warning that giving false information on the form was a felony and included a civil penalty of up to $20,000.  She was not aware of any time that the warning had been acted upon.  During the last election, someone ran for office for the Assembly from Las Vegas who was a felon, and it was not discovered until some time later.  He had signed up as a candidate, knowing he was a felon, and had given false information.  He had not been prosecuted, to her knowledge, for violating the law. 

 

In box 6 on the registration form, regarding an identification number, it stated, “An identification number is a Social Security number, Nevada driver’s license number, or a number from an ID card issued by Nevada DMV or other State/Federal Agency.  You may choose to leave this block blank.  If left blank, a number will be issued to you by the County Clerk/Registrar.”  An illegal alien would be able, if he or she lied, to swear to be a citizen of the United States.  It would be possible to register to vote, because no identification was required to do so. 

 

If a bank wished to accept the “Matricula Consular,” she wondered if it would affect the legal citizens of Nevada in any way.  Private enterprise had the right to accept whatever forms of identification they decided to accept.  That was really not the issue.  The issue was to develop a statewide policy that would not allow people to get driver’s licenses, through loopholes, in the state and appearing to be legal when they were not.  The person who most benefited from a Consular identification card was a person who was undocumented or illegal.  To allow any local government or any local agency or any state agency to determine the acceptability of that card on its own, the legislators were allowing, de facto, for driver’s licenses to be issued.

 

Janine Hansen believed it would be a better decision, although she opposed Senate Bill 312, for the legislators to determine the statewide policy regarding the acceptance of the Consular card.  She wanted the decision made and placed in the law rather than to simply allow entities to decide on their own.  Many saw the permissive nature of the bill as positive; Ms. Hansen saw that permissiveness as negative.

 

People who wanted to come to the United States were having a difficult time doing so since September 11, 2001.  Her sister-in-law was from Columbia, and, after Ms. Hansen’s brother was killed, she was very interested in having her sister come to the United States to live with her.  Because of the problems that surfaced as a result of September 11, 2001, and the cutting back of legal immigrants, it was difficult for her to achieve that goal.  To Ms. Hansen, it seemed that the bill would circumvent the immigration laws of the U.S.  The bill would likely give de facto citizenship, or the appearance of citizenship, and de facto amnesty to those who were in the country illegally.

 

Her family was comprised of immigrants, her brother married someone who wanted to immigrate, and she had no problem with legal immigration. 

 

Several other issues were important.  One was that several states and cities, New York State and New York City, some cities in Michigan, Florida, and Arizona, had voted not to honor the card at all.  As the information on Exhibit G noted, there were many other places where the Consular card was not accepted in terms of getting a driver’s license or as identification.

 

Ms. Hansen continued to refer to articles written on behalf of Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) who was the head of the Immigration Reform Caucus for the Congress.  He stated, in a newsletter article, that legislation had been introduced to ensure the security and validity of identification cards accepted by the federal government (Exhibit I).  The General Services Administration was reevaluating acceptance of the Consular cards, also.  “The issue,” stated Representative Tancredo, “was extremely important for reasons of national security, as well as providing an obstacle to those who were attempting to obtain locally what they could not get from the Congress.”  He further insisted that Michelle Malkin, who had written a book on the immigration issue of Consular cards, described the “Matricula Consular” as an insecure document designed solely to subvert U.S. immigration laws.  “Its continued acceptance pours fuel on the fire of a still out-of-control fake identity crisis in America,” concluded Malkin.

 

Ms. Hansen continued to quote from Exhibit I:

 

The Center for Immigration Studies published the first in-depth examination of the Matricula Consular and the role it plays in Mexico’s attempt to shape U.S. immigration policy (www.cis.org/circle.html).  The study, “IDs for Illegals:  The ‘Matricula Consular’ Advances Mexico’s Immigration Agenda,” by Marti Dinerstein, describes the Matricula Consular as a “piecemeal” approach to securing amnesty for the 3 [million] to 5 million Mexican illegal aliens in the United States, a strategy adopted in the wake of the new security environment in the U.S. after 9/11.  The study notes that Mexico hopes the Matricula Consular will be accepted by governments and businesses across the United States, giving illegal aliens legitimate ID to present to law enforcement and to open bank accounts, among other uses, thus helping bring about a de facto amnesty.”

 

Ms. Hansen mentioned again, as the legislators considered Senate Bill 312, that they needed to decide whether they would make the policy for the state, or they would allow every local agency, including the DMV, to determine for themselves whether or not they would accept the Consular card as valid identification.  Also, by accepting driver’s licenses from other states, illegal aliens would find it quite simple to obtain a driver’s license in the state of Nevada.  The policy should not just happen piecemeal.  The policy needed to be established through the legislative process.

 

Assemblyman Williams stated that the problems of the Department of Motor Vehicles existed before the bill came before the Committee for consideration.  People had been able to turn in driver’s licenses from other states in exchange for a Nevada driver’s license for a long time.  Regardless of Senate Bill 312, those problems would continue until the problems were addressed through other legislation.  He understood how the problems were related to the bill, however.  He queried Ms. Hansen about her acceptance of the bill if the loopholes were closed.

 

Ms. Hansen responded that closing the loopholes so that illegal aliens would not be able to get through that hole to get a state driver’s license would improve her outlook.  It would also help her outlook if the state election laws were changed so that registering to vote became a more stringent process.  Those were two significant concerns. 

 

However, the one concern that remained was that the bill would be to legitimize and imply citizenship with that identification card, something that the average person in a business who had not been to the hearing, and the average person in the public, would believe made that individual a legal immigrant. 

 

When a person handed the card to a business worker, the worker was assuming that it was a legitimate ID.  The business worker would have the right to demand a state driver’s license, but that worker would probably not understand the intricacies discussed in the hearing.  The regular person would possibly assume that the person with the card was a legal alien, thus supporting de facto amnesty.  She wondered if the attempt here was to accept de facto amnesty by not creating a statewide policy in the Legislature.

 

One thing that she had forgotten to mention was that the Mexican government provided for dual citizenship and dual voting rights.  One could vote in Mexico now, and that same individual would be able to vote in the United States at the same time.  One would also be able to access the Social Security System from Mexico City, if the plans to locate a Social Security Office there came to fruition.  She saw the bill as a move toward de facto amnesty for citizenship and for benefits, whether or not the bill stated they would not qualify for those things.

 

Assemblyman Williams stated that what the legislators had been presented with, from the perspective of the police, was security and identification for the Mexican national.  He stated his belief that Ms. Hansen’s position was against legitimizing illegitimacy.

 

Ms. Hansen agreed with Mr. Williams.  She stated that it undermined the whole system of law, if people were provided with a means to participate legally when they remained illegal.  If immigrants were in the U.S. legally, she was glad to have them participate.  “When we legitimize something that was against the law, however, we were contributing to disrespect and disregard of the law itself.”  The legislators really should make the policy for everyone in the state regarding the acceptance of the Consular cards for identification purposes.  Agencies and entities should not be making that policy on their own, she insisted.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce stated that she had heard Ms. Hansen testify quite often but was now confused.  It was her understanding that Ms. Hansen’s nephew and the political party to which she belonged did not believe, and actually had a court case pending, that someone should have to put some kind of identification number on a voter registration form. 

 

Janine Hansen agreed that Ms. Pierce’s belief was accurate.  She stated that it was her position and that the Supreme Court case affirmed that.  The problem was that some kind of identification was still required for presentation.  One did have to provide proof of citizenship.  That was still required.  What was no longer required was the “number” on the registration form. 

 

Assemblywoman Pierce again referenced members of the American Independent Party and Ms. Hansen’s nephew by asking for clarification about the belief that no number should be required on that registration form.  She wondered why, then, Ms. Hansen would become so alarmed that someone of Mexican heritage would be able to fill out a voter registration form without filling out a number.

 

Ms. Hansen stated she would try again to make herself clear.  Her social security number was on her voter registration form.  That concerned her as it was, thus, open to identity theft.  However, there were those who had a religious concern about the social security number.  Because of their religious concern, under the Constitution of the State of Nevada, there was, by necessity, complete toleration of their religious sentiment.  Because of that issue, those people won the case and did not have to put their social security or driver’s license number, which, in effect, was a poll tax, on a voter registration form.

 

What those people had to do instead was to prove who they were.  They provided birth certificates and other information that declared they lived within the state.  That proof was shown as an alternate way of declaring that they were, in fact, citizens.  Ms. Hansen said, “The fact of the matter was that it was the state law that allowed one not to fill in the number on a voter registration form.”  She further stated that she had not thought about the voter registration process until earlier that day.  When she looked at the form and realized that it did not need to be fully filled in, which she knew but had forgotten, she realized it was a state law that she supported.  The fact that it was a state law created an additional concern regarding the Matricula Consular in her own mind.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce then asked if Ms. Hansen was now rethinking her position about someone having to place an identifying number on a voter registration form.

 

Ms. Hansen responded that she had not made a decision about that yet.  She was not the one who voiced a religious objection, and she was not the one who did not comply.  There were others who did.  She could not speak for all of those people.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce wanted Ms. Hansen to speak to the issue of people of Mexican heritage being allowed to hold the religious opinion that would prevent them from putting a number in the box on the voter registration card.

 

Ms. Hansen stated that she assumed that anyone would be able to hold that position.  Although she had not had the experience personally, she held strongly to her belief that even those people with religious objections to providing a number on the voter registration form had to provide the Registrar with proof of citizenship, either by birth certificate or by affidavit.

 

Chairman Manendo put a time limit on further testimony as there were two more bills to be heard and only 15 minutes left before the members of the Committee had to report for a Floor Session of the Assembly.

 

David Schumann, speaking for himself and for the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, testified in opposition to S.B. 312.  His focus, he stated, would be on welfare benefits and driver’s licenses.

 

If the state really wanted to do what he had heard the intent was, something to protect illegal aliens from being robbed because they were not able to open bank accounts and to facilitate their status in the country so the police could check out who they were, S. B. 312 drastically needed the legislators to amend it to specifically state that the DMV would not be allowed to issue driver’s licenses to people who could not prove their right to live in the U.S. legally.

 

On election issues, when he had registered to vote in Pennsylvania 40 years ago, he had to provide a birth certificate.  When he moved to California, 17 or 18 years later, he did not have to do that.  He only had to present himself and to speak proper English.  Since then, he had discovered a little item called “The Motor Voter” bill passed a few years ago by the federal government.  In California, the state declared that voter registration people were forbidden to ask one’s nationality.  He believed states needed to tighten that up. 

 

In dealing with Senate Bill 312, there was a huge hole.  Once a person had a driver’s license, that license constituted de facto citizenship.  Mr. Schumann stated that he had traveled to islands in the Caribbean, he had a passport, but returning through immigration in Florida, all that was required was for him to show his California driver’s license.  One could move into and out of the country based on the strength of the California driver’s license.  Most places in the world would accept a driver’s license as valid ID, because it had one’s photo right there. 

 

One would also have a visa stating that he or she was in the country legally.  Mexicans who came here legally either had a green card, a perfectly valid ID issued by the federal government, or they had their own passports, which were also photo IDs.  The only people who needed a Consular card were those who did not have proper documentation.  “We would need to plug up the loophole which was the DMV,” Mr. Schumann contended.  If the Legislature would say that no one, under any circumstances, would be able to get a driver’s license without proper proof that they were here legally, that would plug up a huge hole and would relieve a great deal of anxiety.

 

John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly, testified in the Senate, he stated.  After he completed his testimony there, he reported, three individuals, who claimed he was a racist, accosted him.  He declared that he definitely was not a racist.  What bothered him the most about the use of the Consular card was that the people who would use it were not legally in the United States.  When people entered this country, they should enter legally. 

 

Mr. Wagner spoke of his son-in-law from India.  He came to the United States with a green card and later became a citizen.  That was the way it should be, stated Mr. Wagner.  He did not care what country a person was from, anyone who came into the United States needed to be legal.  Mr. Wagner stated he would support, at the federal level, “guest worker” programs.  He thought that would be very good.  He thought that there had been a program like that, but that it had been changed considerably over the years.  Anybody in the country without documentation was illegally here.  Anyone here illegally was basically committing a crime.  An illegal alien was, therefore, a criminal. 

 

Mr. Wagner continued that Vicente Fox had insisted that all of his Consulates push for the Matricula Consular.  He made $29 off of each one of them, and there were over 1 million cards made last year.  That would be a total revenue of $29 million, good business for Vicente Fox and the Mexican government, according to an article Mr. Wagner presented to the Committee (Exhibit J).  As far as passports allowing a person to work, they did not.  Mr. Wagner had gone to Canada to do some training, and his passport did not give him the right to do the training in that country.

 

He would like to see some other way of handling identification issues.  He did not believe that criminal activity should be rewarded, and he insisted that only those without a valid green card, illegal aliens, would need the Consular identification card.  He suggested that those who were shown the Consular cards should call the INS, let INS pick them up, and encourage them to deport the illegals.

 

Lynn Chapman, representing Nevada Families Education Foundation, stated that she and those she represented were opposed to S.B. 312.  She did provide Committee members with two articles, Exhibit K and Exhibit L, both from the office of Tom Tancredo.  She reminded the Committee that Representative Tancredo was the Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus for the U.S. Congress.  She wished to point out that he said, “While all governments have a responsibility to look after their citizens residing abroad, they have no right to actively pursue policies that seek to undermine local laws nor should they use their Consular officials as lobbyists for such an agenda.”  That was written to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and signed by 11 other congressmen.  He also stated, in Exhibit K:

 

Mr. Secretary, this is an issue of enormous significance that has massive implications for the nation.  While the issuance of national identification cards is nothing new, providing them with the express purpose of evading the U.S. law is something else entirely.

 

In Exhibit L, Representative Tancredo was talking about Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who had a pilot program allowing federal buildings in San Francisco to accept the Matricula Consular ID cards.  He reported the following:

 

These cards are being distributed by Mexican Consular officials throughout the United States in the hope that cities and states will accept them as proper identification, and that, eventually, all social services and related privileges, which are usually reserved for citizens, will be afforded to Mexican nationals here illegally.  Mexican officials have stated that getting local governments to accept these cards is a way to maneuver around the U.S. Congress, which has, so far, blocked attempts to pass any amnesty provision for illegal aliens.

 

It is extremely disconcerting to see agents of a foreign country actively trying to lobby American officials to aid and abet lawbreakers, but is even more infuriating when cities and members of Congress become co-conspirators.

 

Ms. Chapman then noted that she had received information from the “El Paso Times,” January 29, 2003 (Exhibit M).  The article she referenced spoke of a report written by Marti Dinerstein who alleged that the identification card was easy to forge, and the information contained on it was not available to U.S. authorities.  “The only people who know anything about the person on the card is the Mexican government,” wrote Ms. Dinerstein.  “Can we count on the Mexican government to share information about one of its citizens with U.S. law enforcement officials?”

 

Ms. Chapman was a four-times past president of the American Legion Auxiliary.  She was also the Legislative Chairman for the American Legion Auxiliary.  She had been talking with members of the American Legion, the American Legion Auxiliary, Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and other service organizations about the Consular card.  They had known nothing about it.  They certainly did now.  She also had many friends from a variety of foreign countries who felt insulted that the cards were being issued.  She had helped her friends learn English and to study for their citizenship tests to encourage them to become citizens, and they were very proud to be citizens.

 

Alan Culver, concerned citizen and member of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE), spoke in opposition to Senate Bill 312.  He confirmed that he and his associates in FILE had been fighting the use of the Consular card as valid identification across the country.  He intended to bring a notice of legal concerns and possible liability on the acceptance by public entities of foreign government-issued identification cards.  There seemed to be many legal issues associated with that.

 

Mr. Culver stated that legal notice had been made available to all entities that had decided to honor, were in the process of considering to honor, or who would be considering to honor at some time in the future, the “MAC” IDs.  “MAC” stood for Matricula Consular, according to Mr. Culver.  The “MAC” ID was a card issued by the Mexican government to persons in the United States as a suitable form of identification for the “divorcement of services” including law enforcement services by agencies.  Mr. Culver gave the following report:

 

As was well known and widely reported, the “MAC” ID was an identification card issued by the Mexican government through its Consulates to Mexican nationals illegally residing in the United States.  Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, known as FILE, and a variety of legal experts were of the opinion that no state, county, city, incorporated city or town, school district, political subdivision of a state organized pursuant to law, may adopt any policy that authorized, recognized, utilized, or incorporated the “MAC” ID.  After careful consideration, FILE had determined that any such policy was illegal, was unconstitutional, and exposed the public entity to civil liability.  That was irresponsible public policy.

 

As was clear, he continued, it was the federal government’s job to determine and set our immigration policy, not the state’s job.  If the Legislature passed S.B. 312, it would circumvent the federal law, because it would be deciding the immigration policy for the people. 

 

It would also constitute a federal statutory violation, in his opinion.  Since only illegal aliens had the need for the “MAC” IDs for identification purposes to access city services, any public entity or its representatives that accepted the “MAC” ID were in violation of Section 274 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. That act provided criminal penalties for any act that encouraged or induced an illegal alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States.  “Encourage” or “induce” included actions that permitted illegal aliens to be more confident that they could continue to reside, with impunity, in the United States. 

 

Mr. Culver stated that Section 274 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act was also interpreted to mean “actions” that offered illegal aliens a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens.  To prove that the state or local government agency encouraged or induced illegal Mexican aliens, all the government needed to establish was that the agency knowingly helped or advised the aliens or made them more confident of their continued acceptance in the U.S.

 

What was so ironic about the “MAC” ID was that the Mexican banks did not hold the “MAC” in high regard as an identity document (Exhibit N).  No major bank headquartered in Mexico listed the “MAC” ID among the several official documents they accepted to open accounts.  On July 1, 2002, the Mexican Ministry of the Interior instructed regional offices of the National Migration Institute that full recognition and validity be authorized for the Matricula Consular for identification purposes and for entry into Mexico.  As of December 2002, the document was being accepted in only 10 of Mexico’s 33 states (Exhibit N).

 

Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on Senate Bill 312 after ascertaining that there were no other witnesses to testify in favor of or in opposition to the bill.  The Chair asked permission of Senator Titus to consider Senate Bill 236 next.  Receiving her permission, he opened the hearing on S.B. 236.

 

Senate Bill 236 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions relating to location of halfway houses for recovering alcohol and drug abusers. (BDR 22-90)

 

Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District No. 7 in Clark County, introduced S.B. 236.  It was a bill that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani sponsored jointly with Senator Titus.  The bill resulted from concerns expressed by Vivian Freeman, former Assemblywoman from District No. 24, as there were problems in northern Nevada and a growing problem in southern Nevada.  It was of particular concern in the older areas of various communities.  In those areas where housing was less expensive and there were no restrictive CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), there was an increase in the number of group homes. 

 

Over the years, the Legislature had amended NRS 278 to require that those homes be registered and that they be a certain distance apart.  That law had been on the books for several years.  What had happened was that the group homes were not just residential facilities; many of them were becoming “halfway houses” where former inmates lived and where neighborhoods were experiencing feelings of terror.  Foul language, obscene behaviors, hanging out in parks where children gathered, and doing bodily functions in public seemed rather inappropriate where families existed, functioned, and raised children.

 

Senator Titus related that there were several television news stories in northern Nevada where newscasters had had obscene gestures made to them along with catcalls and other inappropriate behavior.  By placing some kind of a regulation on the halfway houses, the effort was to change some of that behavior.  Establishing distances between halfway houses and specific locations where children gathered seemed a place to begin.  Those locations would be churches, schoolyards, parks, Boys and Girls Clubs, or whatever a local government might determine would be an appropriate place where children would gather.

 

Senator Titus added that the Legal staff of the Legislative Counsel Bureau examined the issue and the approach taken in S.B. 236 and saw no problem with the direction taken.  Since that time, some had come forward to suggest that it was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, perhaps, with the Fair Housing Act. 

 

It was not the intent of the sponsors to infringe on the legitimate residences where people were recovering, where there was ongoing treatment; the sponsors wanted to encourage those programs.  They did, however, want to address the issue. 

 

Maybe the bill was not the way to do it.  With the help of Ms. Nash-Holmes, Senator Titus thought there might be another, better, approach.  She introduced Ms. Nash-Holmes to explain.

 

Dorothy Nash-Holmes, Department of Corrections, stated that she had testified before the Senate Judiciary in past weeks.  Senator Maurice Washington had brought up the current issue, and the Judiciary Committee suggested a different approach.  It was their suggestion that a taskforce be formed, comprised of members of the Legislature and members of the community, to examine the entire issue, statewide, of halfway houses.  There was some general consensus in the community that some of the regulations put into effect in the last couple of legislative sessions had not truly worked.  There were health and safety regulations on treatment homes, for example, which must now come under the purview of the health division, but the homes without regulations included the halfway houses where no treatment was offered.  Those were the homes of grave concern in neighborhoods and cities.

 

The Department of Corrections recognized that as a problem for the following reasons:

 

• The Department did not want to do anything that placed serious violent offenders in neighborhoods where they did not belong.  There were federal and state laws currently in place that forbid criminals from being within a certain number of feet of schools and other places.
• The state and the Department of Corrections had considerable interest in transitional housing, as well as in treatment facilities within the community.  There was not enough space available to meet the needs of people who had completed their sentences or where they were paroled.  At any given time, there were 250 to 300 offenders sitting in the prisons who had already been granted parole but could not be released, as there was no place for them to live.
• The wrong types of houses were being regulated, and the problems were not being solved.

 

What was being proposed was the convening of a taskforce to examine and resolve the whole issue statewide.  Senator Valerie Wiener, Senatorial District No. 3, had suggested that it be done through either the Governor’s Corrections Study Committee, which was convened for six months last year to look at the issue of corrections in general, or through another entity that was put together jointly by members of the Legislature and volunteer committee members.

 

Ms. Nash-Holmes had discussed the proposal with several members in the audience who were originally planning to testify to some of the problems that the bill, S.B. 236, created.  There were specifically problems for treatment entities.  Those people expressed to her a willingness to her to accept the proposal for a taskforce to work toward a global solution.  Senator Titus and members of the treatment community were in favor of that proposal, also.

 

Senator Titus confirmed the comments made by Ms. Nash-Holmes.  What she did not want to see happen, however, was to propose a taskforce under the guise of an interim study committee.  She stated that there were not many study committees coming out of the current legislative session, the current concern was a narrow topic compared to some of the broad issues addressed by interim studies.  She did not want the concern being addressed to fall through the cracks as a result of not being selected for an interim study.  The concern was so important that she was hoping to amend the bill to direct the establishment of a taskforce or a letter drafted by the Chairman of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee reinforcing what was suggested by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee; the Senator would appreciate help with the concern.  She did not want the focus to be on treatment facilities; she was most concerned about those homes that housed predominantly male former inmates with very little supervision, very little or no regulation, and no treatment at all.

 

Chairman Manendo commented on Senate Bill 236 passing the Senate.

 

Senator Titus remarked that, at the time it passed, there had been no opposition.  The senators had not heard that passage of the bill would be passing something that would be considered illegal and would face a constitutional challenge.  They did not hear, either, that treatment facilities would be affected by its passage.

 

Dorothy Nash-Holmes stated that she had spoken with treatment providers.  Although Senate Bill 236 came on very early in the session, people were not ready, quite frankly, nor had they prepared for the bill.

 

Chairman Manendo stated that he was extremely disappointed by those who stated they were not ready to testify.  There were too many legislators working hard on behalf of their constituents.  To not be ready was difficult to accept.  Legislators were expected to come to the session, work as hard as possible to do the job, be as thorough as possible, and to work quickly.  A bill that made it halfway through the process with no opposition was quite a surprise.

 

Senator Titus expressed her surprise and concern, too, when she heard that there was strong opposition.  Ms. Holmes, however, was trying to help all sides with the issues, stated the Senator.  She was not the one representing the opposition side.  Those in opposition had remained fairly anonymous and had still not spoken directly with the Senator.

 

Chairman Manendo said that his statement was in general to all who had gone through the disappointment of believing there was a solution and then finding, to their surprise, that there were major difficulties with their efforts to be responsive to citizens’ needs.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce supported Senator Titus’ current efforts.  When she had first read the bill, she was a little alarmed, as she came from a place where halfway houses were places where citizens were attempting to get clean and sober, lived for a while, got on their feet, and received treatment.  Then, she discovered that, to some people, halfway houses were places where released offenders go just for housing.  She knew of one such Las Vegas halfway house, which was exactly as described, a flophouse.  People who claimed to be religious ran it.  It created many difficulties in the neighborhood where it was located.  She strongly supported a taskforce to look for a more global, statewide solution.  She, too, wanted to support people who had a legitimate commitment to sobriety, because that helps all citizens in the state.

 

Senator Titus described a home that had come to her attention in northern Nevada.  The person who ran the home, the halfway house, was wanted for criminal offenses, was an ex-felon, and encouraged housing 20 people in each room.  The neighborhood really did suffer as a result.  The only recourse was to attempt to take away the business license.

 

Chairman Manendo spoke affirmatively about Senator Titus and her constant and continuing concern for the citizens of the state.  He saw her as community-minded and neighborhood-friendly and complimented her many efforts through the years on behalf of those she served.

 

Ms. Nash-Holmes added that, later in May, in Las Vegas, there was a conference being held on behalf of an association of recovery houses.  Many of those houses were not in compliance with the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA).  Those entities also wanted to solve the problems discussed at the hearing.  She did believe that there was a possibility for a statewide consensus to tackle the issues of halfway houses soon.

 

Chairman Manendo agreed with Senator Titus that interim studies were far too few.  Meeting every two years and not having more information about areas of concern seemed to him to be a disservice to those whom the legislators represented.  Very little of the state’s business was done in the interim.  He offered Senator Titus more time to consider how to best handle Senate Bill 236.

 

Senator Titus asked whoever opposed the bill to meet with her, talk with Dorothy Nash-Holmes, and, perhaps, the Senator would be able to return in a couple of days with a proposed amendment or a request for a letter.

 

Chairman Manendo then turned to the opposition in Las Vegas.

 

James Vilt, Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center, was present to express some of the concerns of the Center to the potential discriminatory effects of Senate Bill 236.  He apologized for not appearing earlier, as the bill slipped past the Center’s radar.  The Center’s staff had talked with people in the drug counseling community who had expressed their concerns, which became the Center’s concerns.

 

His testimony, according to Mr. Vilt, was confined to pointing out that, while disability did not include the current and legal use of a controlled substance, drug addiction and alcoholism were considered disabilities under the Fair Housing Act.  The Center would see the bill, S.B. 236, as possibly perpetuating incremental stereotypes of people with particular disabilities.  It would possibly have a discriminatory, segregative effect on those persons, also.  The Center stood ready to work with Senator Titus and her staff to develop solutions.  He understood the kinds of problems that existed with halfway houses that were not treatment facilities.  He did not want to see people with true disabilities get lumped in with the others.  Mr. Vilt had a prepared statement that he wanted included as an exhibit (Exhibit O).

 

Chairman Manendo strongly urged Mr. Vilt to contact Senator Titus or her staff within the next two days.  Seeing no further witnesses, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on Senate Bill 236 and opened the hearing on S.B. 359.

 

Senate Bill 359 (1st Reprint):  Revises provisions relating to freedom to display flag of United States. (BDR 22-310)

 

Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District No. 7, stated that there could be no more propitious time to consider a “flag waving” bill than now.  Senate Bill 359 was such a bill.  Patriotism was at an all-time high, the troops needed support, the country was currently in a war on terrorism, and everyone seemed ready and eager to wave the flag.

 

Recent events revealed that in a part of her district, the older part of her district, which was Henderson, there was a homeowners’ association that prohibited the flying of an American flag.  That caused much consternation in the press, and the City Council of Henderson decided to adopt an ordinance that said that an association would not be allowed to prohibit the flying of an American flag.  The Senator decided that, if it was good enough for Henderson, it was good enough for the rest of the state.  She had, therefore, requested and sponsored Senate Bill 359.  She believed the Committee had seen a similar bill requested after S.B. 359 that was quite similar.  That bill was requested and supported by Assemblyman Griffin.

 

Ms. Titus stated that her bill simply said that, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or a landlord in an apartment building or a mobile home park would not be able to prohibit flag flying.  Those entities would be able to place certain reasonable regulations on when you were able to fly the flag, how you would fly the flag, and where you would fly the flag, but they would not be able to keep you from doing it.

Assemblyman Williams had been supportive of the intent of the bill as far back as 1995, when a young legislator of that time displayed vision.  That legislator was Chairman Manendo.  He was very supportive of the bill in its current form, also.

 

Senator Titus left to return to the Senate.

 

Assemblyman Knecht noted that Senate Bill 359 would become effective upon passage and approval.  His concern was, because the bill also provided for the payment to the prevailing party of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred to pursue certain legal actions, that “immediate effectiveness” would prevent a local jurisdiction or party from being able to come into compliance before being sued.

 

Section 13, stated Mr. Knecht, was the portion of the bill that spoke to “immediate effectiveness.”  Section 11, subsection 4, page 11, referenced the payment of fees.  He still wondered if a person, unaware of the change in the law, was subject to a lawsuit within minutes of approval by the Governor.

 

Ms. O’Grady stated that Section 12 provided for a time frame for compliance that ended on July 1, 2003.  There was leeway in the bill for people to amend their rules and ordinances.

 

Chairman Manendo asked if there was other testimony to be heard on S.B. 359.  Hearing none, he closed the hearing on the bill.

 

Assemblyman Knecht appreciated the value of Section 12 but wondered if that would bar legal action under Section 11 before July 1, 2003.

 

Ms. O’Grady suggested that the “effective date” section of the bill be reworded.  She proposed adding words after “made effective upon passage and approval for people to review and amend their provisions.”  Then she suggested adding “and, on July 1, 2003, for all other purposes.”  That would make it clearer, she stated.

 

Chairman Manendo announced to the Committee that the hearing on the following day would begin at 8:00 a.m. sharp.  There were four bills on the agenda for that day.  Having no further business to bring before the Committee, Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 10:47 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Nancy Haywood

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman

 

 

DATE: