By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director
Nevadans for Election Reform
The Nevada legislature adjourned June 3, 2019, ending a busy
120-day session. At the start of the
session, the Democratic caucus published their “2019 Legislative Session
Nevada Blueprint”. Included under the heading “A Fair System for All”
was “Expand access to the ballot box”. The Republican caucus did not
list election or voting in their published priorities. However, in the end, the
one clear message was that nothing was “clear”.
Nevadans for Election Reform tracked a total of 29 bills. Some
of the outcomes were bipartisan, solving a problem. Some I believe were based
on partisanship. A few were perhaps a matter of pride of ownership. Some were impacted
by leadership for various reasons.
Problem Solved
AB50 – Introduced by the
secretary of state, sought to move odd-year elections in eight Nevada cities to
the statewide even year cycle. With turnout routinely below ten percent, this
change has been sought in the past to increase voter participation.
Surprisingly the bill faced no opposition from the cities, and it passed with
broad bipartisan support and was signed by the governor.
AB137 – This bill put
forward by Assemblyman Howard Watts originally included items that were being
addressed in AB345 (see below). Because of this duplication, the bill was
reduced to one point, making any voting location established on an Indian
reservation permanent. The bill passed unanimously and was signed by the
governor.
AB345 – This bill is listed
here with reservation. Introduced as a personal bill by Assembly Speaker Jason
Frierson, this wide-ranging bill’s primary purpose was to allow for same-day
voter registration. There is no question that allowing voters to register or
update their registration at the polls increases voter participation. Allowing
change in party affiliation at the polls during the primary effectively changes
the state’s partisan primaries from closed to semi-open. While I personally do
not believe a voter should have to choose a party to be allowed to vote in a
publicly funded election, allowing same-day voter registration is a step in the
right direction to increasing participation. However, not all is good with this
bill. 1) When the Secretary of State’s concerns about increased workload for county
election officials and delays up to 10 days in releasing election results were
not adequately addressed, the secretary came out in formal opposition. 2) Just
as partisanship killed AB259 (addressed below), a provision in AB345 was
removed for what I believe is the same reason. The provision would have allowed
those 17 years of age who would be 18 before the general election to vote in
the primary. Since a 17-year-old is not a legal voter, the provision eliminated
the ability of a candidate to be declared the winner of any race in the primary.
3) The bill provides requirements for implementing automatic voter registration
(AVR) which was passed by the voters last November. As passed, AVR is supposed
to be “automatic” unless the voter opts out in writing. Instead of allowing all
steps to be completed at point of service at the DMV, AB345 requires the voter
to complete a separate form and drop that form in a secure box located
somewhere in the DMV office. This takes the “automatic” out of “automatic”. It
also creates a potential that because the form is two-fold, both a declination
of registration and a selection of political party, a voter could accidently be
recorded as declining registration when all they were doing was declaring a
political party. 4) AB345 reduces the amount of information available to voters. The names of candidates and the office for
which they are running, and a condensation of ballot initiatives and
constitutional amendments will no longer have to be published in a newspaper. If
a county uses only voting centers on election day, the locations of the voting
centers are not required to be published the week before the election. The bill
does not replace publication with any other means of communicating the
information. AB345 is well-intended. However, as the party line votes
exemplify, there was not much collaboration. When I refer to “pride of
ownership” this is the bill implicated. It is with mixed emotion that I say the
governor signed the bill. Hopefully the flaws will be addressed next session.
AB431 – This is another bill
that solves a problem but has partisan overtones. AB431 restored the voting
rights of ex-felons and was filed by the Speaker. There was not opposition to
an ex-felon having their right to vote restored once their sentence, including
parole or other requirements, had been completed. That is the way the bill was
originally worded. However, the Speaker decided to make it a partisan bill by
deleting that requirement and simply restoring voting rights upon release from
prison. I spoke with two Republican members of the assembly shortly after the
bill was amended and they could not figure out why the Speaker would choose to
make a bill with likely unanimous support a partisan issue. Because of the
change, the bill passed both chamber committees and the full senate along party
lines. Three Republicans voted in the assembly voted in favor. Governor
Sisolak signed the bill.
SB193 – This was a unanimous
win for the state as it ensured funding for the “We the People” program that
stresses civics and government involvement to all students. Happily, this
funding was approved by the governor.
Partisanship
AB99 – This civics education
bill introduced by Assembly Minority Leader Jim Wheeler sought to change the
American government curriculum taught in Nevada schools by including
instruction in the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of
powers. The bill’s conservative leaning should not have surprised anyone. But instead
of using this to start a discussion on civics instruction in Nevada schools,
the bill was denied a first hearing.
AB259 – During the 2015
session, SB499 changed the election process, in place for over 50 years, when
only one major political party, Democratic or Republican, fielded candidates
for a partisan office. The change suppressed the vote of over 50 percent of
voters. SB5, during that same session reduced the percentage of voters needed
to win election in non-partisan races by allowing a winner to be declared in
the lower turnout primary elections. AB259, sponsored by the Assembly Committee
on Legislative Operations and Elections (Nevada Association of Counties
introduced a similar bill; AB82, but dropped their efforts in support of AB259)
was the second attempt to reverse these voter
suppression measures. The first attempt, AB226 during the 2017 session was
denied a floor vote in the assembly by Democratic leadership. This session, the
bill passed the assembly with bipartisan support but was blocked by Democratic
senate leadership and not given a vote in committee. Hopefully this will come back in 2021. Voter
suppression must not be allowed to stand.
SB107, SB118, SB122 – This
trio of bills introduced by Senate Minority Leader James Settelmeyer were given
what I truly believe was a courtesy hearing the first week of the session but
went no further. The most controversial of these bills, SB107, which was co-sponsored
by Senator Pete Goicoechea, sought to require a sitting legislator resign
before running for another office. This bill was triggered by the candidacy and
eventual election of two sitting state senators to Nevada attorney general and
Clark County commissioner. Eventually, seven legislators ended up being
appointed this session; only one vacancy caused by death. Of the other six, two
were caused by resignation following criminal or ethical violations and four by
resignation for seeking other office. These seven legislators were appointed by
the appropriate county commissions. Voters did not a say. Two of the resignees
were actually re-elected to the assembly in the November general election by
their constituents then announced their resignation to seek other office.
Voters had no say. Following the committee hearing, the bill’s sponsors
accepted an amendment proposed by Nevadans for Election Reform to extend the
filing deadline when a resignation took place under the provisions of the bill
so voters, not seven or five county commissioners selected who represented the
district.
SB123 – This same-day voter
registration bill introduced by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections
Committee turned out to be a face-saver for leadership. The Secretary of State
is the only Republican state constitutional officer. In addition to AB50, the
secretary filed SB237 dealing with election security and SB449, the office’s
omnibus clean-up bill. In what I consider a slap in the face to the Secretary,
neither bill was given an initial committee hearing. SB123 being unnecessary
due to AB345, leadership saw an opportunity to correct the error, deleted the
original language and inserted the language of both SB237 and SB449. The bill
passed the senate unanimously and with only one vote against in the assembly
and was signed by the governor.
SB333 and SB335 – These two
bills sponsored by all eight Republican senators met a partisan death at first
deadline. The resignation of Senate Majority Leader Kelvin Atkinson for
campaign finance violations brought the need for campaign finance reform to the
fore. Waiting two weeks to see if Democratic leadership would come forward with
a bill, Republican senators introduced SB333. The bill died without any
discussion, however, two days before the end of session, the Senate Majority Leader
brought a similar bill, not as strict as SB333. On the final day of the
session, the Republican sponsors put forth an amendment to include some of
SB333 into the bill. The amendment was defeated on a party line vote. When the
bill went to the assembly that same day, the Assembly Majority Leader removed
all but a very weak provision; a candidate cannot pay themselves a salary out
of campaign funds. Campaign finance reform apparently held no real priority for
Democratic leadership. SB335 was meant to ensure all cities and counties
allocated their voting locations to allow all voters the opportunity to vote
easily and conveniently. Making voting easy and convenient is a standard
element in fighting
voter suppression. This was not the only voter convenience measure to not
make it through the process. (see SB452)
Pride of Ownership
AB269 – Put forward by
Assemblyman Alexander Assefa and nine others, this bill proposed changes to the
sample ballot process by introducing current technology giving voters easier
access to the sample ballot, increasing early voting opportunities, and adding an
additional convenience when voting absentee. Despite the large number of
sponsors, the bill was not allowed to proceed in committee. Could have been in
conflict with AB345.
SB452 – This was another
bill addressing absentee ballots, decreasing distribution timelines. The bill
was in response to postal time constraints. The bill passed with bipartisan
support in the senate and along party lines in the assembly. But a simple voter
convenience proposed by Nevadans for Election Reform and adopted by the senate was
removed in the assembly committee work session. The proposal would have allowed
voters to drop off a completed absentee ballot at any early voting location.
The proposal was not opposed by county election officials or any legislator I
personally spoke to. The spoken reason the provision was removed was “It would
be too much for election workers if same day registration passes.” Perception;
conflicted with AB345. Governor Sisolak signed the bill as amended by the
assembly.
Leadership
AJR9 – This resolution aimed
to tackle the hot button issue of whether or not judges should be elected or
appointed. Introduced by the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections
Committee the bill passed out of the committee unanimously but was denied a
floor vote.
SB450 – This bill sponsored
by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee was in response to
the attempted recalls of three Democratic state senators last year. It imposes
stricter signature collection and verification procedures and makes it more
expensive for recall sponsors. This bill is a small band-aid for a big problem.
The Nevada
constitution allows for the recall of any elected official for any reason.
The only way to stop frivolous recall attempts; those initiated simply because
opponents did not like the election results or subsequent votes by those
elected, is to amend the constitution to require recalls be for cause. When I
asked the Senate Majority Leader why a constitutional amendment was not
proposed; the majority leader was one of those targeted, her response was
simply “It was discussed.” My perception is that Democratic leadership did not
want to really strengthen the recall process in case they wanted to turn the
tables.
SJR5
– As with nearly every session, the final few weeks is full of last-minute
maneuvering and last-minute bills. Public testimony is limited, many votes
are “behind the bar” on the chamber floor without any public presence or
official written minutes. 120 days is not enough time to realistically handle
all what needs to happen. SJR5 introduced by ten Democratic senators once again
tried to amend the state constitution to allow for annual sessions. The bill
was made exempt following its initial hearing in March, but no other action was
taken by the end of the session.
One Other Note
AB186 – Introduced by
Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, AB186 was the second attempt to have Nevada join
the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a group of states
exercising their authority under Article II Section 1 of the United States
Constitution to determine how their presidential electors shall be appointed, agreeing
to appoint electors committed to the presidential candidate receiving the most
votes nationally. During the 2017 session, the bill died in committee without a
vote. This session the bill was passed with bipartisan opposition in the
assembly and along party lines in the senate. Governor Sisolak vetoed the bill.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the NPVIC and opposition is largely
based on emotion rather than fact. The governor’s
veto message falls into this group.
Mixed messages. Some good, some bad. Definitely politics at
play. 2021 is not that far away.
