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.