MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE OPERATIONS AND ELECTIONS Seventy-fifth Session The Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections was called to order by Chair Joyce Woodhouse at 2:05 p.m. on Thursday,, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412E, 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 in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Joyce Woodhouse, Chair Senator Bernice Mathews, Vice Chair Senator Valerie Wiener Senator William J. Raggio Senator Barbara K. Cegavske Senator Warren B. Hardy II COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator John J. Lee (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Kathryn McClain, Assembly District No. 15 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst Karen Johansen, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Elliot Anderson, Intern for Assemblywoman Kathyrn A. McClain Ron Gutzman, American Legion; Nevada Veterans Services Commission Tim Tetz, Executive Director, Office of Veterans Services
Page 2 Rebecca Gasca, Public Advocate, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada Matt Griffin, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State Larry Lomax, Registrar of Voters Clark County Alan Glover, Clerk-Recorder, Carson City Dan Musgrove, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk, City of Henderson; Nevada Municipal Clerk s Association CHAIR WOODHOUSE: We will start today with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 231. ASSEMBLY BILL 231 (1st Reprint): Exempts certain veterans from the requirement to pay any fee established for registration as an uncompensated lobbyist. (BDR 17-998) ASSEMBLYWOMAN KATHYRN A. MCCLAIN, Assembly District No. 15: This bill began as an idea with my intern, Elliot Anderson. Elliot is required to testify on a bill as part of his internship during the session. This bill waives the uncompensated lobbyist registration fee for honorably discharged veterans as a way of showing our appreciation for their service to our country. ELLIOT ANDERSON (Intern for Assemblywoman McClain): Three years ago, I began working with the Legislature through various veterans advocacy groups after serving four years in the United States Marine Corps. I am concerned about problems my fellow vets experience. It is a good day when I can work on these issues, and I am in strong support of A.B. 231. While being engaged in veterans advocacy, it can be a difficult job getting vets involved in the process. Reasons range from veterans being disenchanted with the process because of the Department of Veterans Affairs problems to getting out of the service unscathed and not needing to be involved in the process. Although the last U.S. Census fact finder indicated veterans made up 10 percent of the population nationwide and 12 percent in Nevada, apathy causes veterans, as a group, to be less involved in government than the percentage would suggest. As we lose a great number of veterans through apathy, disabled vets who need government help the most are left vulnerable. With apathy running rampart, it is difficult for a group to watch after their interests. This is the root cause of some issues vets face, most of which are federal in nature. Providing tools to help veterans maximize their federally earned benefits is the Nevada Office of
Page 3 Veterans Services (NOVS) core mission. It is a win-win situation helping vets and bringing federal money to the State. Assembly Bill 231 encourages veterans to get involved in the political process by waiving the $20 fee for uncompensated lobbyists and honorably discharged veterans. We want to encourage a culture of activism to stay involved with the process. Let us give NOVS and Tim Tetz, Executive Director of the Office of Veterans Services, more veterans to add to his team to help his mission. While paying very little, Nevada can help improve the lives of veterans and maximize federal dollars for the State. The fiscal note in A.B. 231 assumes 20 veterans will participate for a $400 total. It is a $20 investment, per veteran, per session. If involving new veterans in the process is successful, revenue, which was not there, will not be missed. Unpaid lobbyist refers to people representing others, such as a veterans group. They are helpful testifying for groups of veterans, especially disabled veterans who have difficulty coming to the Legislature. The State requires paid lobbyists register to regulate their activities, unpaid lobbyists need not register. Assembly Bill 231 was cosponsored by 41 members of the Assembly and passed unanimously. The bill only applies to honorably discharged veterans of Nevada who are not paid by their veterans groups for lobbying activities. I urge passage of A.B. 231. It is a great bill for veterans and Nevada. RON GUTZMAN (American Legion; Nevada Veterans Services Commission): I have followed veteran bills for four sessions. The American Legion supports A.B. 231. It is of value when veterans can come to the Legislature and talk about issues and their service-related experiences. I have two examples. The first one is the road for the Fernley Cemetery. We tried working with local government entities to get the work accomplished and got nowhere. When we came to the Legislature, it was taken care of immediately. Next, I was at the Legislature when a bill was presented for more service officers for Nevada Veterans Services. An Assemblywoman asked what does a service officer do? The question was not properly answered. It helped to get the vote for funding more service officers when I told her what a service officer did for me 50 years ago. TIM TETZ (Executive Director, Office of Veterans Services): I am in support of A.B. 231. I work with a great agency head representing veterans. With a phone call or e-mail I can have between 4 and 14 veterans
Page 4 come to the Legislature on any day. Those 4 to 14 veterans who stand behind me represent organizations, service branches from every way era and every service branch. They have stories, issues and perspectives. The veterans will only do what you ask of them if they are allowed the opportunity to continue to serve in the lobbying forum without paying. They will provide a better understanding of who they are and what their needs are. I ask your support for A.B. 231. REBECCA GASCA (Public Advocate, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada): I have provided a handout (Exhibit C) with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada s concerns. The ACLU supports any laws that would encourage expression and participation in the democratic process. That is a fundamental reason for our existence. We are here as an organization that recognizes those fundamental rights of expression and participation in our government functions. However, in those instances in which a law governs those fundamental rights, our equal protection concerns are paramount. We are wary of any laws that create groups who might be extended more privileges than others. Instead, we advocate laws that address legitimate needs of any constituency group depending on the barriers that are put in place in that particular instance. In this case, the barrier is the fee that will be waived for this group. When we spoke in the Assembly and brought up our equal protection concerns, we listened to the feedback from Assembly members who were cosponsors on this bill. We have discussed options that might address our equal protection concerns. We came up with the idea of offering an amendment that would provide for an indigence exception. The monetary amount that veteran groups, or any other groups, would have to pay to come into this building and legitimately express their needs is a barrier this law is seeking to overcome. An indigence exception seems legitimate in addressing needs of a broader group of people while still recognizing the sponsor s intent of encouraging other individuals to take part in an important process. I want to make it clear we understand the fee for nonpaid lobbyists is imposed on individuals who come into this building to speak on behalf of other individuals and not themselves. I want to share a quick story. Before this Session started, I went to the Healthy Communities Coalition in Lyon County. This coalition has a help up, not hand out group that teaches individuals how to become a part of the process. For people who do not understand the process of making statewide laws, this group teaches individuals how to become part of the lawmaking process on a county and statewide level. I spoke to the group about lobbying, and they had the idea
Page 5 of one or two people coming to the Legislature and speaking on behalf of their coalition. These people are indigent individuals. They may be on welfare or other state-run programs, but are interested in having their voices heard and learning the process of creating laws that govern their lives. By providing an indigency exception, these people would be encouraged to come and have their voices heard. This equal protection argument and the ACLU position extends to both bills being heard today. We worked with Mr. Tetz on the extension of the fundamental right of voting, the importance of breaking down barriers and extending the right to all the people and groups affected. SENATOR WIENER: Based on the example you shared about the group of people that want to be recognized as citizen lobbyists, the criterion was they were an indigent population. To create that category as the reason to have a broader-based descriptor under equal protection concerns is presuming veterans are indigents. The bills that have been coming forward this Session are about honoring people who have put their lives on the line for us. That is the intent of the legislation. The catch-all-category description presumes people who file for the $20 waiver are indigent. That descriptor does not capture veterans legitimately. That is not the reason for A.B. 231. MS. GASCA: I understand your point of view. The exception here is in relation to the monetary waiver. It is separate from the veteran category. Because the barrier is monetary for one group, we related the additional exception as indigent. It is very separate. We respect that point of view. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN: A criteria for checking indigency would be required for such an amendment, resulting in a large fiscal impact. The veterans need only prove an honorable discharge. BRENDA ERDOES (Legislative Counsel): We do not believe there is a problem because speaking about opinions and personal concerns of a group at the Legislature does not require a fee. We do not believe speaking on behalf of a group would trigger the same legal analysis the ACLU is determined to put on A.B. 231. We believe it would stand a challenge, and we cannot find any cases in point that would make this bill unconstitutional.
Page 6 SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 231. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** CHAIR WOODHOUSE: We will close the hearing on A.B. 231 and will move on to A.B. 41. ASSEMBLY BILL 41 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to voter registration and voting procedures for certain members of the Armed Forces of the United States and certain members of their families, and certain other voters who reside outside the United States. (BDR 24-324) MR. TETZ: In the Seventy-fourth Session, the component of A.B. 41 was in the Assembly. Senator Cegavske asked me to defend the bill because it included veterans. I did not know about the complexity of veterans voting rights. I came back with a bill that has been amended on the Assembly side. It is a strong bill and cleans up the Nevada Revised Statutes, making it easier for veterans. Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Mark, who recently returned from a year in Iraq as a member of Nevada s National Guard, testified in the Assembly that 50 percent of the military could not vote because they did not receive ballots on time. I commend the Registrar of Voters from Carson City, Clark County and the Office of Secretary of State who worked with the ACLU on the language giving military members an opportunity to vote. The Secretary of State has proposed two amendments I support. Give those who serve in the military the opportunity to vote. Make it as easy as possible and do not disenfranchise them. I urge the passage of A.B. 41. MATT GRIFFIN (Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State): The Secretary of State is in full support of A.B. 41. We have two proposed amendments that I have supplied for the Committee (Exhibit D). The first is found on page 4, section 8, line 41-43, the proposed amendment brings the language in comport with federal law. Under federal law, only uniformed voters can cast special absentee ballots within the United States. Nonuniformed
Page 7 overseas voters cannot cast special absentee ballots within the continental United States. Second, on page 9, sections 14, lines 1-23 include an amendment that was on the Assembly side of A.B. 41. We are seeking to remove the language in that section. Currently, the language would allow someone who has never been in Nevada and has no contact with the State except for having parents who are residents of Nevada to cast ballots for local, as well as statewide, offices. The Secretary of State s office is not comfortable with someone who has never been in Nevada having a say about local elected officials. There is no federal requirement this be included in state law. Sixteen states have similar laws; it is an eight-to-eight split whether they allow this type of voting. Our amendment would take that section out, and only those people who have been in Nevada and live in Nevada are able to cast their ballots for Nevada races. ALAN GLOVER (Clerk-Recorder, Carson City): When you vote for A.B. 41, you can be proud of it. It is one of the best pieces of election legislation I have seen in years that helps make it easier for military and overseas people to vote. LARRY LOMAX (Registrar of Voters, Clark County): I would like to add our support to A.B. 41. As a 30-year military veteran, I always had to vote absentee. I can assure you this bill will make it easier for military people to participate in our election process. It will also make it easier to support and work in elections. MS. GASCA: Our argument is the same on both bills, and we have worked with the sponsors on recognition of the equal protection argument. We noticed this bill originally was limited to members of the military and perhaps their spouses or dependents. There are situations when people are abroad who may be subcontractors for the military, serving in a U.S. Department of State capacity or teaching English overseas, who face the same difficulties casting their ballot. We worked with Mr. Tetz to extend the protections offered in this bill to members of the military and also to others who are overseas and not members of the military. That goes in line with our equal protection concerns. On page 10 of the bill, lines 11-19, there is an amendment to the bill that says someone who is separated from employment outside of the territorial limits of the United States is also granted the abilities allowed veterans covered under this bill. We
Page 8 thank Mr. Tetz for working with us. The ACLU supports further enfranchisement in any situation, especially when it addresses fundamental rights such as voting. CHAIR WOODHOUSE: I am ready for a motion. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED A.B. 41. SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** CHAIR WOODHOUSE: We will close the hearing on A.B. 41 and move on to A.B. 79. ASSEMBLY BILL 79 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions concerning city elections. (BDR 24-486) DAN MUSGROVE (Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities): Assembly Bill 79 is a bill on behalf of the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities. I would like to turn the explanation of the bill over to Monica Simmons, who is in Las Vegas. She has been the City Clerk of Henderson since 1998. She is also a Director for the International Institute of Municipal Clerks and President of the Nevada Municipal Clerks Association. MONICA MARTINEZ SIMMONS (City Clerk, City of Henderson): Thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks on behalf of the Nevada Municipal Clerks Association and on behalf of the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities. Assembly Bill 79 is fully supported by the Nevada Municipal Clerks as the proposed language accurately reflects current processes and procedures during the election cycle. It also provides cities the option of implementing all-mail ballot elections in special circumstances. The proposed language was reviewed with the Clark County Registrar, Larry Lomax. He assists in facilitating our local election process. The municipal clerks are the election officials during the municipal election cycle; we do contract for services with Larry Lomax.
Page 9 I would like to highlight the five specific areas we are requesting. On page 2 of the first reprint, lines 1-17 provide cities the option of having an all-mail ballot election but only in special circumstances. This is a situation the City of Henderson may be facing after the municipal election. There will be a vacancy in one of the council seats. We will have to make an appointment, call for a special election or hold an all-mail ballot election. It would provide the opportunity for cities to have an all-mail election in the case of one race or one ward being on the ballot. It will give municipal clerks the opportunity to facilitate the process efficiently and effectively. The second item on page 2, line 25 is cleanup language. On page 3, line 35, section 3, subsection 4 allows additional language that speaks to the city charters. The city charter authority prevails. We want to add clarifying language that indicates if one candidate receives more than the majority of votes passed in the election for the office for which he is a candidate, he is considered elected and his or her name need not be placed on the general ballot. On page 4, section 4, lines 1-7 clarifies language. As long as there are sufficient written notices provided to the City Clerk or the Registrar of Voters, any qualified registered voters can request a mail-in ballot. The second to the last item on page 4, lines 38-45 and page 5, lines 3-5 was language requested by the clerks. We are required to post tabulation results pursuant to current language the night of the election. In some cities cases, such as Mesquite, they do not return to their city until midnight or later. These clerks are often not accompanied by security. This provides that the clerks make the results available online, but allows them to post the results the business day immediately following the tabulation. It is a security measure. The remaining language that we requested to be added in section 6 and section 7, pages 5-7, relates to secure storage. We want to make sure it is clear that not every city clerk maintains a secure vault on their premises and would like to have the opportunity to designate that secure storage location. In many cases, that is with Clark County. SENATOR CEGAVSKE: When you say a special circumstance for a council seat or an appointment, who is making the decision that this will be a mail-in ballot? How are the signatures verified? I feel we are opening a Pandora s box that I do not want to open.
Page 10 Henderson is such a large area. Why would we want to do a mail-in? Could you tell me about an instance or circumstance? MS. SIMMONS: There are specific circumstances. We narrowed down the requirements in the Assembly. This is only in specific circumstances; the deciding body would be the local governing body. As outlined on page 2, it would only be in the situation where there was a special election. That special election would be called in a vacancy; it could be called to fill a vacancy in the event of a death, serious illness or recall election. The second option is a primary city election or a general election in which the ballot includes one office or one question on the ballot. In the case of the City of North Las Vegas, there is a situation where there is a one-ward race in the special election. They would like the option of a mail-in ballot to facilitate the cost of election more effectively. SENATOR CEGAVSKE: I understand the money issue. We already have an appointment process. If any of those situations happened, where there was a death or a recall, we have another body that would make those appointments. I am not convinced this is the way to go. MR. LOMAX: You are correct; the city council has the choice in the case of a vacancy. It is a choice according to statutes to either appoint or to have a special election. Las Vegas had a recall a few years ago and chose to have a subsequent election. I am not advocating one way or the other. An all-mail election is less expensive if it is a small election. The printing costs are minimal. When we have an all-mail election it eliminates sending out a sample ballot, which is a driving cost of an election. There are many pages from various statutes required for the sample ballot. Four out of six wards in Las Vegas have had one issue on the ballot choosing from three candidates, yet we have to send out an eight-page sample ballot. Signatures are verified the way we verify them right now. About 8 percent to 10 percent of the population chooses to vote absentee. All the signatures are verified in our office with signatures on file from the voter registration forms. SENATOR RAGGIO: I have apprehensions about opening up the election process to mail balloting. We have discussed that for a number of sessions and have never supported it
Page 11 as a body. There is much more capability of having a fraudulent election through mail-in ballots. Why is the language deleted on page 4 about voters who have physical disability? As I understand it, that allowed someone to request an absentee ballot that would be available for the entire year. Are you saying that is redundant language already covered otherwise? MS. SIMMONS: That is redundant language. Other than providing the specific notice to the registrar of the city clerk that you would like to vote by mail, no further requirements need be met. A medical disability is not required to request a mail-in ballot. SENATOR RAGGIO: The reason for that is if there were more than one election in one year, these people would only have to make the application once. MS. SIMMONS: That is still the case, regardless of who makes the request for the mail ballot. SENATOR RAGGIO: They would have to make an application for a primary, a general and a special election in each case. The reason for the language was if a person was over 65 or disabled, they only have to apply once for all elections that year. They would not have to apply for each election. MR. LOMAX: Previously, that was the case. Currently, any voter on the absentee ballot request form can select from several boxes. One is for every election during the year, one is for the upcoming election and one is for special elections. Deleting this language is because it is superfluous language. It is covered elsewhere. Any voter can request absentee ballots for every election in that year. MR. MUSGROVE: An absentee ballot serves as a mail-in ballot. Some of the safeguards to ensure the accuracy and the fact that it is an accurate and nonfraudulent vote are an effort to drive up voter participation. We just had a primary in municipal elections in Las Vegas. The turnout was dismal. There are some good reasons when there are singular issues that do not cause the voting electorate to take the effort to get to the polls.
Page 12 SENATOR RAGGIO: I do not disagree. There is a big difference between the procedures for getting an absentee ballot and how the verification occurs for the postcard mail-in elections. MR. LOMAX: Senator Raggio understands the procedures. The difference in an all-mail election is we never see the voter. We get a request; all verification is done by signature. Signatures are readily identifiable. An all-mail ballot relies on the signature verification process. As Mr. Musgrove said, I am very confident voter participation would go up. It can hardly go down when it is at 10 percent in the small elections. I am not aware of any significant fraud since I have been here. SENATOR RAGGIO: We have never had a mail-in ballot. MR. LOMAX: We have never conducted an entire all-mail election. In 2008 we had 54,000 people vote using mail-in absentee ballots. That is the same thing. There is no difference between an absentee ballot and a mail-in ballot. SENATOR CEGAVSKE: If we open this up, could this be used in all elections under a few guidelines? Could it be used for more than what you are referencing? I am not comfortable with using mail-in ballots for an entire election. MS. ERDOES: The requirements are set out on page 2, lines 3-10, saying it could be a special election or a city general election which includes one ward, one officer or a ballot question. SENATOR CEGAVSKE: Including cities in the main elections is something we have previously tried. We were not successful. Henderson voiced the biggest opposition. MR. GLOVER: The City of Fernley recently had an election with an example. They left 40 or 50 people off the ballot in a ward and had to have another election for those people. It would have been convenient to mail out ballots instead of calling for a
Page 13 full election. Clerks as a group would have preferred a mail-in election. Instead, a full-blown election with sample ballots was held. SENATOR RAGGIO: If it is a mail ballot, would everyone have to apply for an absentee ballot and vote that way? MR. GLOVER: It is my understanding a ballot would not need to be requested. If the city council called for this type of election, clerks would simply mail ballots to those registered. SENATOR RAGGIO: That is what is bothering me. Everybody who is registered would get a ballot in the mail? What verification do you have if they no longer live there, or if they died? MR. GLOVER: It is first-class mail. It cannot be forwarded. If they were no longer living there, it would come back to the office. My only experience in a full mail-in election was the Republican presidential preference primary. It was quite helpful to us. We mailed many ballots to Republicans and got quite a few back. It gave us an opportunity to purge our rolls and correct our addresses. Sample ballots go bulk rate, and we never get those back. If the ballot has ID required, they would have to put a copy of their ID in their absentee ballot. We do that for absentees now. If the ID is not verified, it does not count.
Page 14 CHAIR WOODHOUSE: Seeing there are no further questions or comments, the meeting is adjourned at 3:04 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Karen Johansen, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Joyce Woodhouse, Chair DATE: