MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
May 19, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:39 p.m., on Monday, May 19, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Second Judicial District Court
Richard L. Siegel, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Chairman O'Connell:
I will open the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 12.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 12 (1st Reprint): Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to provide for staggered elections of District Judges. (BDR C‑212)
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director:
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked me to make opening remarks in her absence. This bill proposes to amend the Constitution of the State of Nevada to provide for staggered elections of district judges. The resolution requires the Legislature to provide for the election of district judges so that, as nearly as possible, one-third of the total number of judges to be elected are elected every 2 years. The measure would allow the Legislature to shorten or lengthen the term of a district judge in order to provide for staggered terms, and thereafter the current 6-year terms of office would apply. This would be the first attempt in the Legislature for this proposed constitutional amendment. It would go to the voters in 2006.
My research indicated at one time Nevada did have staggered terms and it was changed so that district judges were all elected at the same time. With so many district judges appearing on the ballot at the same time, particularly in Clark County, the thinking is “Let’s get it back to the staggered terms because it really works better.” I believe the main issue is salary. If district judges’ salaries were increased, some would benefit immediately; others would have to wait until the conclusion of their terms and be elected to office again.
Chairman O'Connell:
Did testimony in the Assembly indicate there had been complaints about this issue from Nevada judges?
Mr. Erickson:
I believe the issue was the length of the ballot in southern Nevada.
Chairman O'Connell:
Who would decide how the details would be worked out for those who are currently elected to 6-year terms?
Mr. Erickson:
I believe it would not be specified in the constitutional language. I think the Legislature would prescribe by law how it would be done.
Senator Care:
I remember when we went from staggered to non-staggered terms. Does your research indicate when this was done in Clark County and the reason for it? Was it about 10 or 15 years ago?
Mr. Erickson:
Yes, you are about right on the time frame. I think to equalize salaries was one issue. Perhaps someone else can clarify this matter.
Senator Care:
All municipal and justice court terms were set at 6 years. The idea was departments would have staggered terms as more were created. I do not know how we would make the change in Clark County where tremendous growth is being experienced.
Vice Chairman Tiffany:
Does anyone else have a comment?
Senator Raggio:
When you read these constitutional provisions, if we are going to do something like this, we probably should remove other things like the “County of Roop” from the Nevada Constitution.
Also, these districts have different numbers than they previously had, although it is accommodated somehow in the language. The reason these were made to stand election at the same time was the concern about keeping the salaries equivalent. We are still using all kinds of devices in dealing with the Nevada Supreme Court situation. We have to do an artificial designation, so they will get an extra salary portion, to make it equal. This is based upon their positions as members of the law library board of trustees in each district. That is why we changed it and I would hesitate to go back again unless there is a very compelling reason. I understand the length of the ballot is one issue, but the ballot length is not dictated only by judges’ positions; there are other issues. We probably need a separate ballot for ballot questions and maybe even a separate election just to handle the questions. We had a hard time getting enough people in the Legislature to vote for this device of keeping the salaries equal and I hate to see us revisit that situation.
The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Second Judicial District:
I am chief judge of the Second Judicial District and president of the Nevada District Judges’ Association. I inferred from comments here today that there might be some support, or a suggestion of support, for this proposal among district judges. That is not the case. The district judges unanimously oppose this proposed resolution. For over 139 years, the State has been electing district judges. To our knowledge, there is no public outcry to increase the number or frequency of elections of district judges. It is not clear what public policy this proposed amendment purports to satisfy; however, it is my understanding there is a perceived benefit that such a proposal could be used to avoid a complete turnover in the district judges at one time.
According to the political history of Nevada, offered by the Office of Secretary of State and dated 1996, over 92 percent of the Nevada district court judges’ seats go unopposed. In the last election, there were 55 district judges who ran for election; only three in Washoe County were opposed; one in Pershing County was opposed; one in Humboldt County was opposed; five in Clark County were opposed, but four of those seats were open seats.
We maintain this is bad public policy for two reasons. First, we should minimize the number of judicial elections, not increase them. It does not promote good judiciary stability, nor stability among the people who serve as judges. Instead, it creates uncertainty with respect to the length of terms, it allows the judiciary to vary, and most importantly as a personal note, it works against attracting quality lawyers to the judiciary. I believe it should be the public policy goal to try to attract quality lawyers to become judges. If the terms are uncertain and elections are frequent, the races will be expensive and continuous. I think it is bad public policy.
Finally, I believe this bill promotes nothing more than political consultants’ employment because it requires judges to go out of office every 2 years. One‑third of them will be out soliciting money or campaigning, even though they may not have races. It seems to me to be a tremendous waste and a burden on litigants, lawyers, and the public to have to participate in the political process when it is unnecessary.
Chairman O'Connell:
I will close the hearing on A.J.R. 12 and open the hearing on A.J.R. 3 of the 71st Session.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 3 OF THE SEVENTY-FIRST SESSION: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise provisions governing right to vote and to repeal certain obsolete provisions. (BDR C-1009)
Mr. Erickson:
This is a constitutional amendment which was approved by the Legislature 2 years ago and is back again for its second time around.If it is approved this Legislative Session, it would go to the voters in the next general election.This proposal would do two things.It would amend the Nevada Constitution to revise the provisions governing the right to vote and it would take out the terms no “idiot or insane” person shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector.
I will yield to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to explain this bill, but I would comment this is one case where we have repealed some antiquated provisions in the Nevada Constitution.I am referring to page 2 of the bill under “Text of Repealed Section.”
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9:
This was part of the obsolete language discovered last Legislative Session.The Assembly committee considered removing the language completely, but we felt it would send the wrong message to the public who would not understand why we were removing the language.The committee reinstated the original language so if this passes the Senate, it would be the second passage, and it would go to the voters in November.
Richard L. Siegel, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada:
I have testified previously on this bill.We believe the language should be eliminated because there is no satisfactory alternative to simply eliminating the language.If you look at what is there now, “person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity,” one example would be someone with multiple sclerosis who assigns guardianship, but still has the right to vote.We find people mentally incompetent for purposes of managing their finances, for medical decisions, and for criminal representation.In none of those decisions is a decision made on their right to vote.Another example would be a person with Alzheimer’s disease. We routinely bring such people to the voting booth. We cannot assume the financial‑, medical‑, or criminal‑representation decision is a decision that they shall not vote.
My biggest concern is we do not want to put a procedure in place that does anything more than eliminate the three words.We might invite a process, which would call on us to establish criteria on which retarded people cannot vote, which psychotic people cannot vote, or which people with Alzheimer’s disease cannot vote.We know we cannot do that; there is not a judge in America who wants this kind of responsibility and this incompetency is a judicially invoked decision. I hope you will do what the Assembly did, take out the words “idiot or insane.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
The committee considered this issue and discussed adjudicating mentally incompetent persons with respect to voting. After researching this issue, we found people were not adjudicated mentally incompetent on the voting issue.It is not a finding that is made for the court, so it did not help us do what we wanted to do.After making the decision to disregard the language, the committee went back to the language passed last Legislative Session, so the process would move forward, rather than starting all over again.
Chairman O'Connell:
I will close the hearing on A.J.R. 3 of the 71st Session and entertain a motion on the bill.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 3 OF THE SEVENTY‑FIRST SESSION.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.(SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Connell:
I will entertain a motion on A.J.R. 12.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I just heard the judges do not support A.J.R. 12.I would like to comment there was no opposition in the Assembly. This legislation does not affect currentjudges; it would resolve the problem of having every single judge up for election at the same time. The public has been very frustrated with the number of judges seeking election or reelection.
Senator Raggio:
The problem is having them all run at the same time avoids the problem of having to give them an additional salary for being a trustee of the law library, which was done in order to keep the salaries even.We still cannot do it with the Nevada Supreme Court, but now all the district judges are on the same time period, and we do not want to go back to this problem.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I understand, because this was the objection to the bill I brought forward 6 years ago.We felt by going to this mechanism from here on out, it would not affect their retirement.In this case, I would suggest as a side issue that we repeal what was done in the last Legislative Session. At that time, a payment was created through the law library, to equalize judges’ salaries.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.J.R. 12.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O'Connell:
I now adjourn the meeting at 2:59 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Alice Nevin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: