►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
I
would
like
to
call
this
meeting
to
assembly
legislative
operations
and
elections
to
order.
We
still
have
at
this
point.
We
time
is
of
the
essence,
because
we
still
have
ways
and
means
that
needs
to
go
back
in
tonight
and,
of
course,
there
we
have
some
deadlines
that
that
we're
working
toward.
So,
even
though
we
have
a
few
members
who
aren't
here,
they're
in
other
committees,
right
now,
working
on
some
intense
work
in
those
committees,
so
we
do
have
quorum,
we
will
go
ahead
and
get
started.
A
And
please
mark
assembly,
woman,
monroe,
moreno
and
assemblyman
fryerson
and
levitt
present
when
they
arrive
with
that
just
a
few
housekeeping.
We
do
have
a
member
that
is
joining
us
through
zoom.
We
will
hear
three
bills
today
and
I
will
take
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
A
Also
anyone
testifying
whether
you're
here
in
person
or
on
the
phones
or
zoom
you
will
have
up
to
two
minutes
to
state
your
testimony
with
that.
I
would
like
to
open
the
hearing
on
our
first
bill,
which
is
senate
bill
51.
This
is
sponsored
by
the
committee
on
legislative
operations
and
elections
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
human
service
management
of
the
department
of
administration.
A
C
C
C
It's
important
to
note
that
this
bill
formalizes
things
that
the
division
of
human
resource
management
was
already
doing.
We
have
a
sexual
harassment
policy
available
on
the
dhrm
website
and
reviewing
and
acknowledging
the
harassment
policy
is
a
typical
part
of
onboarding
for
any
state
employee
and
every
executive
branch.
Employee
is
required
to
take
the
sexual
harassment
prevention
course.
Every
two
years.
C
The
bill
was
heard
originally
in
senate
legislative
operations
and
elections
on
march
11th.
It
was
amended
and
passed
out
of
that
committee
on
april
6th.
It
was
then
heard
in
senate
finance
on
may
18th
and
amended
again
and
passed
out
of
that
committee,
which
is
why
you're
looking
at
the
second
reprint
version,
and
so
unless
you
would
like
me
to
go
deeper
into
the
details
of
the
bill,
that
is
the
that
is
all
I
had
madam
chair.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
I'm
glad
to
see
that
the
state,
as
is
implementing
this
sexual
harassment.
But
my
question
is:
would
sexual
harassment
wouldn't
bullying
be
almost
a
twin
so
to
speak,
and
I
was
just
wondering
why
that
wasn't
in
in
this
bill.
C
Laura
for
your
department
of
administration
for
the
record
through
you,
madam
chair
to
the
assemblywoman
thomas.
Thank
you
this
that
wasn't
really
in
the
scope
of
the
governor's
executive
order.
This
was
really
designed
to
be
a
a
study
of
law
and
policy
around
gender-based
harassment,
so
sexual
harassment,
as
well
as
gender
expression
harassment.
I
agree
with
you.
Bullying
could
encompass
that
and
I
think,
if
you
know,
I
think
mr
richardson
can
speak
more
to
the
studies
that
or
the
investigations
that
shdiu
has
on
its
plate.
D
Thank
you,
follow-up
chair,
please,
yes,
please.
The
reason
why
I
was
asking
about
the
bullying
aspect
of
adding
that
to
the
bill
is
because,
generally
with
sexual
harassment,
sometimes
it's
not.
You
know
female
to
female
or
male
to
male
and
then
that's
when
we
encompass
the
bullying
aspect
of
it.
That's
why
I
was
wondering
thank
you.
B
Thank
you
chair,
I
I
just
is:
is
sex
and
gender-based
harassment,
a
big
problem
in
our
executive
department
of
state
government.
E
Sure,
good
afternoon,
frank
richardson,
good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
we
take
about
155
cases
a
year
that
are
submitted
to
the
sexual
harassment
and
discrimination
unit.
So
we
consider
that
a
significant
problem
of
those
about
60
are
sexual
harassment
or
some
type
of
gender
discrimination.
The
rest
have
to
do
with
other
types
or
forms
of
discrimination
like
ageism
and
other
not
too
many
other
cases.
B
A
Assembly,
woman,
one
where
the
bill's
referring
to
the
executive
branch
and
we're
in
the
legislative
branch,
but
also
we
do
go
through
our
ethics
training
and
we
do
have
you
know
those
rules
and
I
believe,
the
the
book,
the
manual
still
on
our
desk
on
the
floor.
So
you
know
we
should
be
clear
at
this
point
where
you
know
which
behaviors
and
the
type
of
conduct
that
is,
you
know,
acceptable.
And
what
isn't
do
you
have?
Another
follow-up
question.
C
Madam
chair
assemblywoman
dickman,
we
do,
we
have
again
the
the
harassment
and
discrimination
policy
is
available
for
anyone
to
read
on
the
dhrm
website.
That's
hr.nv.gov
and
there
is
also
a
state
guide
to
employee
conduct,
which
also
covers
harassment
and
again,
everyone
has
to
take
the
refresher
course
every
two
years
so
and
I
will
say
in
response
to
this
bill
and
the
task
force.
C
A
I
would
also
just
like
to
make
a
comment
based
on
something
that
you
said
about,
that
you
have
a
150
complaints
filed
a
year,
and
so,
if
I'm,
you
know
anecdotally
or
just
making
assumptions,
that's
150
cases
of
people
that
had
the
courage
to
come
forward
to
file
that
doesn't
mean
there
were
just
150.
A
E
I
would
frank
richardson
for
the
record.
We
know
that
when
we
advertise
and
get
the
word
out
about
the
sexual
harassment
and
discrimination
unit
that
we
get
more
reports,
so
it's
important
that
we
continue
to
keep
this
in
the
forefront
and
that
we
pay
attention
to
what's
going
on
and
update
our
policies
because,
as
we
are
out
in
our
community
with
our
employees,
we
do
get
more
reports
and
a
good
example
of
that
is
the
governor's
executive
order.
We
almost
doubled
our
cases
after
that
executive
order
came
out
and
that's
significant.
F
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
assemblywoman,
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
for
this
bill.
I
think
that,
as
someone
who's
done
a
lot
of
research
in
sexual
harassment
in
the
workplace,
it's
really
easy
to
get
a
lot
of
the
stuff
mixed
up
when
it's
hard
to
define.
So
thank
you
and-
and
so
my
question
really
is-
who
is
who
are
these
investigators
in
in
the
unit
and
then
my
other
question
was
what
is
in
place
for
retaliation
so
like?
F
E
Frank
richardson
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
your
question.
Assemblywoman.
We
do
have
a
policy
that
addresses
retaliation.
Retaliation
needs
to
be
handled
at
the
department
level
because
when
we
conduct
the
investigations,
that
report
goes
back
to
the
director
of
that
department
and
then
the
department
decides
how
they're
going
to
deal
with
that
particular
issue.
E
If
any
form
of
retaliation
comes
up,
we
suggest
that
the
complainant
come
directly
back
to
the
sexual
harassment
and
discrimination
unit
to
file
an
additional
retaliation
complaint
and
if
you're
familiar
with
title
vii
investigations
and
how
they
work,
the
standard
for
retaliation
is
much
lower
than
the
initial
complaint
for
title
vii,
which
is
pervasive
and
severe.
So
we
get
in
a
retaliation
complaint.
It's
immediately
investigated
and
typically
addressed
right
away,
and
I'm
sorry
you
had
a
second
question.
I
apologize
the
first
question.
F
E
Investigators,
okay,
very
good,
frank
richardson,
for
the
record.
We
currently
have
three
investigators
assigned
to
the
unit
and
one
supervisor
that's
only
one
more
investigator
than
when
the
unit
first
started
in
2003,
so
it
hasn't
grown
much
over
the
years.
But
certainly
our
workload
has.
E
Yes,
thank
you
again
for
that
question,
frank
richardson,
for
the
record.
These
are
employees
that
work
for
dhrm
who
are
assigned
to
the
special
are
the
sexual
harassment
and
discrimination
unit
full
time.
That's
they're,
typically
titled
as
compliance
investigators
and
the
supervisory
compliance
investigator.
G
E
Race,
thank
you
for
the
question,
frank
richardson,
for
the
record,
when
we
address
this
particular
bill
and
the
language
with
discrimination,
it's
kind
of
a
catch-all
for
us
in
our
unit.
We
investigate
all
title:
seven
cases
that
are
listed
under
federal
law,
so
every
one
of
those
that
you
mentioned.
We
would
investigate.
G
G
Yeah
thank
you
chair
and
I
I
appreciate
that
and
I
just
wonder
if
it
should
be
made
more
clear
in
the
legislation
that
it
captures
those
other
forms
of
discrimination.
I
just
know
and
harassment,
because
I
just
know
from
conversations
with
other
legislation
that
we've
seen
in
previous
sessions
and
this
session,
that
we've
had
to
go
back
and
codify
that
and
address
that
definition
of
discrimination
or
harassment.
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
should
maybe
do
that
at
this.
If
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
considered.
C
Madam
chair
assemblywoman
taurus
laura
food
for
the
record
again.
This
goes
back
to
you
know.
Our
bill
is
trying
to
answer
the
scope
of
the
governor's
task
force
and
because
we
were
already
conforming
to
title
vii
by
having
the
what
we
used
to
call
the
eeoc
unit,
what
we
now
call
shdiu
investigate
title
vii
to
conform
to
federal
law.
Anyway,
we
hadn't
considered
that,
but
were
amenable
to
it.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Seeing
no
other
questions
I'd
like
to
open
it
up
for
those
who
would
like
to
come
forward
and
testify
in
support.
So
if
there's
anyone
here
in
the
room
that
would
like
to
come
and
testify
and
support.
A
G
G
A
H
Good
afternoon,
chair
miller
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
serena
evans,
s-e-r-e-n-a-e-v-a-n-s
and
I'm
the
policy
coordinator
for
the
nevada
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
Here
today,
in
support
of
senate
bill
51
having
clear
written
policies
and
a
clear
procedure
for
reporting
and
investigating
incidences
of
these
forms
of
harassment,
we'll
ensure
that
state
employees
know
there
is
zero
tolerance
and
will
direct
them
and
to
chair
miller's
point
may
even
encourage
them
to
report
and
where
to
go,
if
they
unfortunately
experience
these
types
of
harassment
and
or
violence.
H
G
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
anyone
who's
on
the
line
to
well
nope
before
I
do
that,
I
have
to
open
it
up
in
here.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
the
room
that
would
like
to
come
forward
to
testify
in
opposition
of
sb51.
G
G
I
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
stephen
cohen,
for
the
record
stephen
with
the
v
cohen
as
in
the
assemblywoman,
so
my
dissent
is
twofold:
number
one.
As
the
agency
mentioned
in
its
presentation,
I
think
the
unit
is
duplicative
of
the
eeo
unit
that
it
already
has,
but
then
also
believe.
The
statute
that's
partially
sought
to
be
revised
with
this
legislation
is
so
deficient
that
I've
submitted
an
amendment
and
if
the
committee
would
be
willing
to
consider
that
amendment,
I
would
be
in
support
with
that
man
of
chair.
Thank
you.
A
And
mr
cohen,
with
that,
in
order
for
it
to
be
a
testimony
in
well,
I'm
sorry
you're
actually
correct,
because
we
are
in
opposition.
Thank
you
for
that
broadcasting.
Can
we
go
on
to
the
next
caller.
G
A
G
A
G
A
With
that,
I
would
close
the
item
for
testimony.
Would
our
presenters
like
to
come
back
and
make
any
final
statements.
A
This
is
a
bill
that
is
sponsored
by
senator
lang
and
it
revises
provisions
on
relating
to
elections,
and
so
with
that
senator
lang
when
you
are
ready
now
do
you
have
some
co-presenters,
I
see
in
the
zoom
mr
schrager,
mr.
J
A
Okay,
when
we
get
to
the
question
part,
usually
what
we
do
just
to
keep
things
organized
is
members
will
address
the
questions
directly
to
you
and
then
you
will
defer
to
mr
trager
when
appropriate.
Okay
sounds
great.
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you.
Please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
Thank
you
good.
J
Afternoon,
chair
miller,
members
of
the
legislative
operations
and
elections
committee,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
present
senate
bill
292
for
the
record.
I'm
roberta
lang
representing
senate
district
7
in
clark
county.
I
will
walk
the
committee
through
the
bill
outline
the
purpose
and
then
answer
any
questions.
J
J
If
a
voter
so
chooses
I'll.
Take
this
moment
to
highlight
some
important
points.
The
straight
ticket
voting
option
is
just
that
an
option
a
voter
can
choose
to
cast
a
straight
ticket
vote
or
they
can
choose
to
cast
a
vote
in
each
individual
election.
There
is
no
mandate
if
a
voter
chooses
a
straight
ticket
voting
option,
but
does
decide
to
cast
a
vote
in
an
individual
race
for
a
candidate
other
than
the
candidate
with
the
party
they
choose.
The
selection
of
the
individual
candidate
will
supersede
the
straight
ticket
voting
option.
J
The
goal-
a
straight
ticket
option,
is
to
help
encourage
voters
to
cast
their
vote
in
down
ballot
races,
including
our
own
legislative
races
that
are
far
too
often
skipped
which
reduces
voters
say
in
state
government.
By
providing
this
option,
we
create
a
smoother
simplified
voting
method
for
voters,
so
that
voting
experience
can
be
more
accurate
and
efficient.
J
Next
in
sections
two
and
three
of
this
bill-
nevada
law
as
it
relates
to
third
party
ballot
access.
Let
me
first
state
inform
let
me
state,
first
and
foremost
that
this
should
not
affect
our
existing
third
parties,
iap
libertarian,
which
will
continue
to
qualify
and
have
ballot
access
as
a
result
of
gaining
at
least
one
percent
of
votes
in
congressional
races.
J
Additionally,
this
is
not
change
or
effect
in
any
way
the
requirements
for
independent
candidates
to
qualify
and
run
in
any
particular
race.
Those
will
remain
the
same.
Instead,
this
six
section
is
meant
to
align
laws
so
that
they
are
in
mainstream
nationally
and
consistent
with
our
initiative
petition
laws.
Section
2
requires
the
signature.
Petitions
necessary
for
new
third
parties
to
obtain
ballot
access
must
be
equally
divided
among
the
petition
districts
and
sets
the
deadline
for
submission
to
june
1st
or
the
monday.
J
Following
june
1st,
if
june
1st
falls
on
a
weekend
and
adjusts
the
deadline
to
file
a
challenge
to
the
signature
petition
to
from
the
fourth
friday
in
june
to
the
second
monday
in
june,
this
update
aligns
the
disbursement
of
those
signatures
requirements
to
be
consistent
with
existing
requirements
for
initiative,
petitions
and,
finally,
by
slightly
moving
up
the
submission
and
challenge
dates.
This
should
ensure
that
there's
enough
time
for
courts
to
review
and
rule
on
legal
challenges
without
the
fear
of
ruling
coming
out
at
or
near
the
printing
ballot
deadlines
section.
J
Six
of
this
bill
requires
the
governor
to
appoint
a
person
who
has
a
who
is
of
the
same
political
party
as
the
former
senator
of
the
same
requirements
that
exist
for
filling
legislative
vacancies
at
the
state
level.
The
next
components
relate
to
how
to
fill
vacancies
that
arise
for
representatives
in
congress.
J
Sections
8
and
9
of
this
bill
require
a
candidate
for
a
major
political
party
to
be
nominated,
a
special
primary
election
before
the
special
general
election
and
requires
the
governor
to
specify
a
date
for
a
special
primary
election
to
be
held
not
less
than
60
days
before
the
date
of
the
general
election
special
general
election.
Section
8
also
removes
the
requirement
for
a
special
election
to
be
conducted
not
more
than
90
days
after
the
issuance
of
a
proclamation
by
the
governor.
If
a
vacancy
is
caused
by
a
catastrophe.
J
One
require
the
majority
and
minority
leader
of
the
house,
of
which
the
former
legislator
was
a
member
who
was
of
the
same
political
party
as
a
former
legislator
to
submit
to
the
board
or
boards
of
county
commissioners
as
applicable.
A
list
of
qualified
nominees
to
fill
the
vacancy
and
two
require
the
board
or
boards
of
county
commissioners
to
fill
the
vacancies
by
appointing
a
person
from
a
list
of
qualified
nominees.
J
K
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
thank
you
senator
appreciate
the
the
presentation
on
the
bill
regarding
the
straight
ticket
voting.
My
understanding
is
that
the
trend
nationally
is
actually
for
more
and
more
states
to
go
away
from
this
mechanism.
K
So,
for
example,
utah,
I
think,
is
in
the
process
of
abandoning
this
approach
and
I
think
the
data
there
actually
shows
that
voter
participation,
especially
in
a
lot
of
down
ballot
race,
non-partisan
races,
has
actually
dropped
and
it's
often
being
attributed
you
know
to
this,
and
a
lot
of
people
who
are
pushing
for
the
repeal
have
spoken
to
voter
confusion
in
terms
of
you
know,
understanding
that
that
you
know
when
you
vote,
you
check
the
straight
ticket
box.
K
You're
not
done
a
lot
of
you
know,
and
so
the
result
is
again
lower
participation.
A
lot
of
those
races
is
that
a
concern
of
yours.
What
processes
might
be
in
place
to
make
sure
that
voters
really
have
a
good
understanding
of
how
this
is
going
to
work?
Thank
you.
A
J
So
I
hear
your
concerns
and
I've
done
a
lot
of
research
and
I've
talked
to
the
county
clerks
and
as
far
as
the
voter
education,
which
I
think
is
hugely
important,
people
in
the
counties
are
used
to
getting
their
voter
books.
The
county
has
the
all
the
counties
have
said
that
they're
going
to
educate
the
voters
on
how
to
do
that.
J
As
to
your
question
about
you
know
the
trend
and
how
the
trend
is
changing
in
my
research,
what
I
found
is
that
more
people
did
straight
ticket
voting
and
then,
when
control
of
the
state
changed
parties,
this
rate
ticket
voting
went
away,
and
so
that
is
what
I
have
found,
and
maybe
mr
schreiker
has
something
he
wants
to
add
to
that.
I
L
Very
good,
thank
you
assemblyman
you
are.
You
are
ostensibly
correct
in
that.
Over
the
last
25
years
there
has
been
a
move
among
certain
states
away
from
straight
ticket
voting
that
always
has
to
do
with
particular
give-and-take
and
flow
of
politics
within
a
state.
I
do
not
think
that
there
is
a
correlation
between
straight
ticket
voting
and
decreased
voter
participation,
in
fact,
quite
the
opposite,
but
in
this
regard
offering
it
as
an
optional
choice,
I
think,
along
with
educational
opportunities,
you
know,
elections
change
all
the
time.
L
Balloting
changes
all
the
time,
whether
it's
to
electronic
machines
or
to
or
to
or
to
or
to
mail
voting.
Any
of
those
changes
require
voter
education,
and
I
think
that
the
that
what
the
center
has
has
tried
to
build
in
here
are
the
appropriate
mechanisms
for
educating
voters
regarding
stray
kids
straight
ticket
voting
as
an
option
for
them
to
exercise
if
they
so
choose.
K
Thank
you
one
follow-up,
madam
chair,
thank
you
regarding,
I
believe
it's
section
11,
but
it's
one
of
the
sections
dealing
with
with
fulfilling
vacancies
and
and
sort
of
the
shift
to
away
from
how
it's
done
now,
predominantly
locally
to
shifting
some
of
that
authority
to
the
state.
I
guess
my
one
question
on
that
would
be
you
know.
Why
do
we
think
that
you
know
at
the
state
level
where
disproportionately,
you
know,
we
see
representation
from
our
largest
counties.
K
Why
the
shift
there
for
a
vacancy
that
may
be
for
a
seat
that
that's
locally,
where,
where
the
folks
locally
on
the
ground
may
be
more
in
tune
with
with
local
issues
and
local
needs,
I
guess
we're
saying:
is
there
a?
I
guess,
there's
a
corollary
to
that?
Is
there
a
problem
that
this
is
seeking
to
address?
K
No,
I
I'm
asking
why:
why
do
we
think
that
this
authority,
or
why
this
should
be
shifted,
sort
of
to
the
state
level,
as
opposed
to
the
old
way
of
doing
it,
keeping
it
locally
where
you
know
so,
the
commissions
would
have
presumably
a
better
understanding
of
of
local
issues
and
concerns.
Does
that
clarify
it.
J
Thanks
so
much
that
helps
a
lot
so
in
the
legislative
races
we
have
heard
over
and
over
from
the
county
commissioners
that
they
don't
want
to
do
this.
It
is
in
our
constitution
that
the
county
commissioners
are
the
body
that
will
appoint,
and
so
in
talking
to
them.
What
they
wanted
us
to
be
able
to
address
was
to
do
the
vetting
process
and
the
commission,
the
local
body,
would
decide
and
based
on
the
recommendations
that
were
given
to
them.
K
J
So
this
is
something
that
I
actually
presented
to
them,
but
they
had
expressed
the
concern
as
it
goes
to
the
rural
counties.
So
in
the
rural
counties
it
may
be
a
bit
different
and
they
wanted
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
have
a
say
and
to
be
able
to
have
multiple
candidates
that
they
might
be
able
to
choose
from
and
not
to
just
have
one
presented
to
them
and
that's
why,
in
the
language
in
the
bill,
it
talks
about
multiple
candidates
just
to
give
them
that
opportunity
to
have
a
say.
B
Dickman
you
chair
miller,
and
thank
you
senator
lange.
It's
good
to
see
you
again.
B
My
question
has
to
do
with
because
I've
been
involved
with
party
the
parties
for
many
many
years
since
I
actually
first
moved
to
nevada,
so
this
bill
repeals
section
15
without
replacement
all
language
of
nrs
293,
dealing
with
precinct
meetings,
county
and
state
conventions
and
organization
of
state
and
county
central
committees.
B
J
Thank
you
assemblywoman,
and
it's
great
to
see
you
too,
to
address
your
question
and
then
I'm
going
to
ask
mr
schreiber
to
take
it
a
little
bit
further.
As
you
know,
I'm
a
former
state
party
chair,
so
this
language
at
some
point,
probably
gave
me
some
direction.
J
When
I
was
chair
when
I
finished
my
term
as
chair,
I
realized
there
was
stuff
in
this
language
that
really
wasn't
applicable
anymore,
and
I
also
knew
about
the
lawsuit
which
I'm
going
to
ask
mr
schreiger
to
talk
about
the
democratic
party
versus
wisconsin
and
what
happened
there
because
they
had
language
in
their
nrs
and
it
is
now
removed
because
of
that
supreme
court
hearing
so
mr
trigger.
If
you
talk
about
that,
please.
L
To
assemblywoman
dickman,
the
sort
of
just,
if
you're
of
your
of
your
of
your
question,
assemblywoman,
who
presumes
that
the
nrs
is
in
fact
the
sort
of
fountain
of
parties
existence
when,
in
fact,
the
things
that
are
being
repealed
here
are
ways
in
which
the
state
has
attempted
to
control
the
inner
workings
and
the
association
rights
of
parties.
L
What
these
statutes
have
attempted
to
do
for
a
very
long
time
is
to
control
the
ways
in
which
parties
organize
themselves
act,
send
individuals
to
state
conventions
or
to
nominate
presidential
candidates,
those
sorts
of
things.
Those
things
are
actually
flatly
unconstitutional
and
the
and
the
and
the
statutes
that
are
at
issue
here
are
being
repealed
because
they
are
essentially,
they
are
default.
There
is
no
way
they
could
operate
if
any
court
actually
was
asked
to
look
at
them
or
anyone
challenged
their
operation.
L
That
say,
you
know
how
to
run
your
your
your
precinct
level
issues
or
how
to
run
your
state
convention,
not
only
wisconsin,
which
was
the
you
know,
sort
of
fundamental
case
on
this.
L
But
I
remember
back
in
2008
there
was
a
nevada
case
that
involved
the
democratic
primary
presidential
primary
and
at
issue
was
whether
or
not
the
democratic
party
could
hold
precinct
locations
within
casinos
or
caucus
locations
within
casinos,
and
it
was
argued
that
this
was
not
authorized
by
the
nrs
and
what
the
federal
district
court
said
perfectly
in
keeping
and
essentially
sort
of
predicting
national
supreme
court
law
was
the
state
acting
through
the
nras.
Nrs
cannot
control
how
a
party
associates
and
produces
candidates
or
conventions
or
or
those
sorts
of
things.
L
So
for
many
years
these
statues
have
been
on
the
books,
but
they
are
essentially
dead
letters.
They
are
essentially
defunct.
So
that's
really
the
the
the
sort
of
driving
force
between
this
is
to
finally
clear
these
out,
so
that
there's
no
further
confusion
regarding
what
a
state
can
and
cannot
regulate.
As
far
as
state
parties
state
local
parties
go.
B
L
Guidance.
Thank
you
once
again.
This
is
bradley
strange
over
the
record,
a
silly
woman.
There
are
other
statues
that
govern,
for
example,
how
a
party
becomes
a
major
party.
How
party
gets
on
the
ballot
as
a
minor
party?
How
parties
exist
in
the
first
instance,
most
everything
beyond
that
is
within
the
party's
right
of
association.
L
So
as
long
as
the
party's
not
doing
something
that
is
flatly
illegal
parties
have
a
right
under
the
the
united
states
constitution
to,
in
essence,
develop
their
own
guidance
as
to
how
they
put
on
their
state
conventions
or
how
they
produce
delegates
from
the
precinct
to
the
county
level
or
even
if
they
do
that
at
all.
Those
are
internal
party
of
functions
and
and
deliberations
that
a
state
cannot
control.
So
the
sort
of
answer
to
your
question
is
sort
of
blessedly.
L
J
Senator
please
proceed
and
if
I
might
just
add
an
example,
so
we're
all
familiar
with
the
presidential
every
every
presidential
we
have
caucuses
or
some
form
of
way
to
nominate
the
president
and
those
in
the
party
structures
and
I'm
sure
it's
the
same.
With
both
parties,
you
decide
what
your
caucus
to
convention
plan
is
going
to
be,
and
that
plan
then
goes
to
the
rules
and
bylaws
of
each
respective
party
and
the
rules
and
bylaws
of
those
parties
decide
how
that's
going
to
happen.
J
I
can
tell
you
that
if
we'd
had
followed
that
our
convention
size
would
be
over
4
000
people
there
now
there
are
more
places
in
las
vegas.
At
the
time
when
I
was
chair,
there
were
two
places
where
we
could
hold
a
convention,
and
so
either
you
do
a
convention
where
you
have
people
in
one
room
and
people
in
another
room.
You
know
there's
just
no
way,
but
I
think
the
bottom
line
here
is
as
much
as
we
would
like
to
have
some
clear
definition.
J
B
Yes,
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
how
how
the
regulations
would
be
set
then
would
they
be
set
by
the
different
county
parties
like
like
bait
could
could
washoe
base
it
on
population
and
clark
base
it
on
something
else,
and
could
we
end
up
with
you
know,
per
capita
representation
totally
different
in
washoe
and
clark
and
then
in
the
rurals?
How
would
we
do
this
without
guidance
without
discarding.
A
Senator
do
you
understand
the
question?
Okay,.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question,
so
it
it
would
be,
the
onus
would
be
on
the
party.
It's
an
organization.
The
onus
would
be
on
the
party
to
figure
that
out
each
county
has
their
bylaws
and
and
the
and
then
there's
the
state
party.
That
is
the
umbrella
over
all
of
them,
and
so
it
would
be
up
to
and
I'm
sure,
they're
already
kind
of
in
your
bylaws.
J
It
would
be
up
to
the
party
organizations
counties
and
the
state
to
figure
that
out
and
if
they
want
to
put
it
in
their
rules
and
bylaws,
like
our
convention,
should
be
this.
How
many
people
should
attend?
What
should
the
representation
be?
As
a
former
chair,
that's
my
recommendation.
A
You
members
any
additional
questions:
okay,
not
seeing
any
additional
questions,
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
testimony.
A
A
M
M
M
A
recent
study
by
keystone
research
center
in
pennsylvania,
a
state
that
took
away
straight
ticket
voting,
showed
that
the
elimination
of
straight
ticket
voting
will
lead
to
an
average
reduction
per
district
of
1
241
votes
in
state
senate
elections
and
845
votes
in
state
house
elections,
numbers
that
are
greater
in
that
than
the
margin
of
victory
in
one
senate
and
four
house
districts
per
year.
Creating
a
straight
ticket
voting
option
will
improve
full
ballot
voting
and
ensure
that
more
equitable,
more
equitable
vote
distribution
in
down
ballot
contests.
A
G
A
N
Good
afternoon
members
of
the
committee
and
madam
chair,
my
name
is
jeanine
hansen.
I'm
the
state
president
of
the
independent
american
party.
We
oppose
sb
292,
particularly
the
portion
which
imposes
straight
ticket
voting
straight
ticket
voting,
exists
currently
in
only
six
states
and
has
been
abolished
in
16
states.
Straight
ticket
voting
is
particularly
harmful
to
minor
parties
who
do
not
feel
candidates
for
every
office.
N
It
is
also
it
also
disenfranchises
nonpartisan
voters.
As
of
january
2021,
nonpartisan
and
minor
party
voters
composed
640
000
voters,
which
is
one-third
of
all
nevada
voters.
Straight
ticket
voting
has
been
found
to
be
very
confusing
to
voters
straight
ticket
voting
hurts
non-partisan
races
like
judges
and
school
board,
which
are
at
the
bottom
of
the
ballot,
because
voters
think
they
are
finished.
Voting.
The
voters
also
fail
to
vote
on
ballot
questions
and
propose
constitutional
amendments.
Straight
ticket
voting
discourages
voter
engagement
in
trying
to
obtain
good
information
about
those
running
for
offices.
N
It
essentially
encourages
lazy
voting.
Although
the
sections
of
the
bill
imposing
earlier
deadlines
for
minor
parties
do
not
affect
the
independent
american
party,
because
we
have
secured
our
ballot
access,
we
oppose
those
portions
of
the
bill
as
well.
Why
do
we
seek
to
make
it
more
difficult
for
people
joining
together
as
voters
to
organize
a
political
party?
Is
it
fear
of
competition
or
perhaps
suppression
of
voters
with
alternative
ideas?
N
N
Is
it
the
objective
of
this
legislation
to
maintain
the
monopoly
of
the
two
parties
for
26
years,
nevada
families
published
the
voter
guide,
of
which
I
was
the
publisher
and
editor
that
reported
answers
of
questions
for
candidates
on
statewide
legislative
county
commissions,
school
board
and
sheriff
to
questions
on
critical
issues.
Hanson.
Your
two
minutes
are
up.
Thank
you.
In
closing,
we
oppose
straight
ticket
voting
as
antithetical
to
the
goal
of
an
informed
electorate.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
Not
seeing
anyone
else
in
the
room
and
thank
you
miss
hanson,
I
know
you
know
the
routine
that
you
could
hand
in
your
printed
statement
so
that
we
have
the
full
thing
for
the
record.
Thank
you.
That
goes
for
anyone
on
the
telephones
as
well.
So
with
that
not
seeing
anyone
else
in
the
room
broadcasting
do
we
have
anyone
on
the
phone
that
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
of
sb
292.
G
G
H
H
I
note
that
I'm
acting
as
a
private
citizen
on
my
personal
time,
not
representing
any
agency
of
the
state
of
nevada
and
not
using
state
equipment
to
provide
any
testimony
on
this
bill.
Sb
292,
especially
section
2,
exacerbates
a
highly
polarized
political
situation,
disenfranchises
supporters
of
minor
parties
and
restricts
voter
choice.
I
submitted
a
detailed
comment
letter
explaining
why
this
is
so.
The
equal
apportionment
requirement
for
petition
signatures
makes
it
practically
impossible
for
a
minor
party
to
qualify
by
petition.
H
It
would
be
almost
effortless
for
a
major
party
to
challenge
petitions
submitted
by
minor
parties
by
counting
the
signatures
from
each
district
and
noting
any
difference
whatsoever.
Even
literally
one
signature,
the
amended
section
two
would
not
allow
any
room
for
deviation
from
a
strictly
equal
apportionment.
The
threshold
of
petition
signatures
required
in
nevada
is
already
immensely
high.
No
party
has
been
able
to
meet
this
onerous
threshold
since
2011.,
section
2
would
compound
the
difficulties
and
enable
a
major
party
to
thwart
every
minor
party's
petition
forever.
H
The
june
1st
deadline
reduces
the
time
to
comply
with
a
more
stringent
requirement.
The
us
district
court
for
the
district
of
nevada
even
struck
down
a
somewhat
less
burdensome
deadline
of
june
10th.
During
the
1992
case
of
fulani
versus
lao
discussed
in
my
letter,
honorable
legislators,
do
you
really
wish
to
support
legislation
that
so
clearly
limits
and
suppresses
voter
choice?
H
How
is
this
consistent
with
a
state
of
commitment
to
voters,
rights
sb292
would
reinforce
america's
bifurcation
into
two
distinct
blocs,
which
are
engaged
in
an
ever
intensifying
struggle
with
one
another,
to
the
detriment
of
any
actual
progress
on
policy
and
any
solutions
to
pressing
problems.
Minor
parties
can
help
provide
solutions
that
bridge
partisan
divides.
Please
do
not
shut
us
out
of
the
process.
Please
reject
sb
292..
Thank
you.
G
O
D-E-G-R-A-F-F-E-N-R-E-I-D,
I'm
the
national
committee
man
from
the
nevada
republican
party,
and
we
are
strongly
opposed
to
this
bill.
292
is
presented
as
a
straight
ticket
voting
bill.
That
small
part
of
this
bill
is
bad
enough
because
it
discourages
voter
engagement
and
informed
voting
and
that's
the
worst
thing
we
can
do
in
our
current
polarized
and
hyper
partisan
political
environment
sections
eight
and
nine
change
the
way
vacancies
are
filled
for
state
and
federal
legislators.
O
Sb
292
requires
the
state
of
nevada
to
hold
a
special
primary
election
in
place
of
the
current
internal
party
nominating
process
to
fill
such
a
vacancy.
That
means
two
complete
elections
to
fill
a
single
vacancy.
We
don't
know
the
expense,
because
the
secretary
of
state
declined
to
give
an
estimate
on
a
quote
vacancy
which
may
or
may
not
occur.
End
quote
based
on
typical
election
costs,
as
stated
in
fiscal
notes
and
other
legislation.
O
The
fiscal
notes
for
this
bill
are
understated,
however,
by
millions
of
dollars,
sections
11,
12
and
13
give
the
legislature
more
power
over
the
process
of
filling
legislative
vacancies
at
the
expense
of
counties.
The
nevada
constitution
rightly
gives
county
commissioners
who
are
the
closest
to
the
people,
the
power
to
determine
the
process
to
fill
vacancies.
However,
under
this
bill,
the
list
of
nominees
to
choose
from
would
be
provided
by
the
legislature,
which,
inappropriately
limits
local
control.
O
If
that's
what
the
people
want,
it
should
be
done
by
a
constitutional
amendment
rather
than
an
end
run
around
the
constitution.
Finally,
section
15
casually
eliminates
in
a
single
sentence
all
of
the
provisions
of
nrs
293
that
govern
state
and
county
central
committees,
precinct
meetings
and
commit
and
conventions.
This
language
is
not
amended,
nor
is
it
replaced
with
anything
simply
repealed
in
its
entirety.
These
sections
of
nevada
law
have
been
in
place
since
1960
and
they're
the
only
section
that
authorizes
and
directs
how
political
parties
operate.
Maybe
that's
a
good
thing.
O
Maybe
it's
not,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
we
have
given
enough
thought
as
to
what
structure
would
replace
this
repealed
law.
Section
15
got
no
discussion
on
the
senate
side
of
the
building
when
this
bill
was
passed.
Only
a
passing
mentioned
that
it
existed
only
today
for
the
first
time
was
there
some
discussion
of
the
motivation
for
the
change,
because
it
forms
the
very
foundation
of
how
major
political
parties
operate
in
nevada.
It
seems
incredible
that
it
would
be
repealed
as
attacked
on
afterthought,
to
an
unrelated
bill.
O
O
G
P
Evening,
my
name
is
lynn
chapman,
I'm
the
state
vice
president
of
nevada
families
for
freedom
l-y-n-n-c-h-a-p-m-a-n.
Please
oppose
fb
2892.
The
national
conference
of
state
legislatures
in
2020
stated
quote.
The
number
of
states
offering
straight
ticket
voting
has
been
declining
in
popularity
over
time.
Unquote,
utah
abolished
it
in
2020
pennsylvania
abolished
in
2019
new
mexico
abolished
in
20
2001.
P
They
tried
to
put
it
back
on,
but
it
failed.
Iowa
abolished
in
2017
texas
abolished
in
2017.
indiana
abolished
in
2016.,
rhode,
island
abolished
in
2015,
west
virginia
abolished,
2015.
north
carolina
abolished,
2014
wisconsin
abolished
in
2011.
new
hampshire,
a
ball
abolished
it
in
2007
missouri
abolished
in
2006.
P
illinois
abolished
in
1997,
south
dakota
abolished
in
1996,
georgia
abolished
in
1994.
jeff
brey
of
michigan
said
quote.
I
almost
didn't
vote.
I
almost
said
well.
If
I
can't
vote
for
who
I
want,
then
I'm
not
going
to
cast
my
vote.
I
think
it
turned
a
lot
of
people
away.
Maybe
there
are
a
lot
of
people
that
didn't
vote
because
of
that
unquote.
P
I
think
it
causes
so
much
confusion
and
so
many
problems.
I
think
it's
a
bad
idea
to
go
forward
with
this
bill.
I
think
it
would
cause
even
more
problems
if
people
can't
even
find
a
way
to
put
their
ballots
in
their
little
envelopes
and
try
to
get
it
back
to
the
registrar's
office.
We
had
a
lot
of
problems
with
that.
I
think
this
is
going
to
cause
even
more
confusion.
Please
oppose
sb
292.
Thank
you.
G
I
A
major
problem
I
see
today
is
an
electorate
that
is
becoming
less
informed
on
how
our
government
functions
and
who
vote
based
on
what
the
government
is
willing
to
give
them
instead
of
what
is
best
for
preserving
the
inherent
qualities
of
our
republic
voting
is
an
incredible
gift
that
we
each
take
to
the
voting
booth.
Ideally,
we
carefully
review
each
candidate
to
make
sure
that
they
support
the
values
we
hold
dear
as
americans.
I
Unfortunately,
senate
bill,
292
and
straight
ticket
voting
does
just
the
opposite.
It
devalues
voting
and
encourages
people
to
be
laxed
and
neglectful
as
janine
hanson
just
mentioned.
Non-Partisan
race
positions
and
ballot.
Questions
can
also
be
overlooked.
That
tend
to
be
at
the
bottom
of
the
ballot
and
further
it
could
cause
some
members
of
the
legislature
who
are
doing
a
good
job
to
be
voted
out
of
office,
plus
this
bill
transfers
the
power
to
fill
legislative
vacancies
from
the
counties
or
county
commissioners
to
the
state
legislature.
I
I
do
not
support
this.
I
believe
that
county
commissioners
have
a
greater
view
of
the
candidates
who
can
meet
the
needs
of
their
counties
better
than
the
state
senate
bill.
292
also
requires
an
additional
costly,
special
primary
election
for
a
total
of
two
primaries
to
fill
a
vacancy.
This
is
unnecessary
and
another
case
of
fiscal
irresponsibility.
I
G
A
Thank
you.
Can
we
open
it
up?
Is
there
anyone
here
in
the
room
it
doesn't
appear
anyone's
here
for
neutral?
Is
there
anyone
on
the
line
that
would
like
to
testify
in
neutral
for
sb
252
292?
Please.
A
A
G
G
P
W-I-N-G-E-R
I'm
neutral
on
the
bill,
but
I
urge
you
to
delete
the
part
of
the
bill
that
makes
it
more
difficult
for
minor
parties
to
get
on
the
ballot
in
1984.
The
democratic
national
convention
passed
a
resolution.
It
said
no
task
of
the
democratic
party
is
more
important
than
protecting
the
right
to
vote.
P
The
part
of
the
bill
that
makes
it
more
difficult
for
minor
parties
to
get
on
the
ballot
is
an
anti-voting
rights
measure,
nevada
hasn't
had
a
party
qualify
in
10
years
and
as
far
as
the
idea
that
the
deadline
has
to
be
moved
earlier,
because
the
state
needs
more
time
to
adjudicate
that.
It's
very
rude
of
me
to
say
the
word
phony.
I
feel
bad
being
rude.
I
do
not
want
to
be
rude,
but
that
is
totally
phony
and
here's
the
evidence.
P
P
A
A
And
I'm
actually
going
to
move
your
statement
to
opposition
because
that
wasn't,
according
to
our
committee
rules,
that
wasn't
neutral,
so
you
will
be
moved
into
the
opposition
for
that
belt.
Broadcasting
next,
caller.
A
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'll,
make
them
short
you
and
we
all
have
a
lot
to
do.
I
just
want
to
clarify
on
the
straight
ticket
voting
when
you
have
straight
ticket
voting,
you
can
vote
your
party
or
you
don't
have
to
vote
your
party.
It's
equal
access
for
all
parties.
Independents
can
vote
on
on
either
party
all
the
way
down
or
an
independent
candidate
they're
all
going
to
be
listed
on
the
ballot.
J
It
just
provides
an
easy
way
for
people
that
don't
want
to
have
to
fill
in
every
single
election
or
every
single
candidate
to
be
able
to
vote
a
straight
ticket.
So
I
think
it
does
not.
Also-
and
the
other
thing
that's
really
important.
It
does
not
say
that
you
shouldn't
look
into
the
candidates
and
figure
out
who
they
are,
because,
if
you're
going
to
cross
lines
and
vote,
you
know
not
a
straight
ticket.
You
want
to
know
who
those
people
are.
So
I
think
it
provides
everything
that
the
opposition
was
asking.
J
A
Thank
you
senator
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
292.
we're
actually
going
to
take
a
moment.
A
I
see
our
next
presenters
our
senators
here
to
present,
but
we're
actually
going
to
work
session
a
bill
right
now,
so
we're
going
to
shift
gears
a
little
bit
and
work
session
a
bill,
so
I
will
turn
it
over
to
our
policy
analyst.
Mr
sturm.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
bill
for
work
session
today
is
for
assembly
bill
432
that
was
heard
on
april
6th,
and
that
was
the
bill
that
expanded
automatic
voter
registration
requirements
to
certain
executive
branch
agencies.
The
measures
specified.
These
agencies
include
the
department
of
motor
vehicles,
department
of
health
and
human
services,
any
agencies
within
dhhs
processing,
applications
for
medicaid,
the
silver
state,
health
insurance
exchange
and
any
other
state
or
tribal
agency
meeting.
Certain
requirements,
as
approved
by
the
governor.
Q
Q
Agencies
must
comply
with
the
national
voter
registration
act,
which
is
52
u.s
code
sections
2051
at
sec,
and
we
had
an
amendment
proposed
by
assemblyman
watts
that
presented
the
bill.
He
submitted
a
bill
to
revise
the
effective
date
of
the
bill,
which
is
section
36
2b
from
january
1st
2022
and
instead
make
that
effective
date
january
1st
2024.
Q
The
intent
of
the
amendment
was
to
implement
the
bill
concurrently
with
the
implementation
of
ab-422,
if
passed,
which
is
that
top-down
voter
registration
system
and
just
a
note
there
were
other
amendments
proposed
by
the
county,
clerks
and
clark
county,
but
assemblyman
watts
has
requested
that
the
committee
act
on
ab-432
without
those
proposed
amendments,
while
adopting
his
amendment
concerning
the
effective
date.
Thank
you,
madam.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
just
a
clarifying
question,
because
I
know
the
sponsor
assemblyman
watts
is
currently
chairing
growth
in
infrastructure,
so
that
the
chair
could
join
us.
But
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
the
amendment
is
simply
delaying
the
implementation
date.
Is
that
correct?
Mr
stern.
Q
A
I
will
accept
that
motion.
Do
I
have
a
second
a
second
from
assemblywoman
monroe?
Let
me
back
up.
I
am
going
to
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
from
vice
chair
houdiki
and
then
accept
a
second
from
assemblywoman
monroe
moreno,
so
that
we
have
that
straight
for
the
record.
So
with
that,
is
there
any
comments
or
question
on
the
motion.
A
Not
seeing
anyone,
I
will
take
a
roll
call
vote,
I'm
sorry
a
vote
all
those
in
favor.
Please
say
I
anyone
opposed
nay.
If
your
name
will
you
please
raise
your
hand?
Okay,
so
I
have
assemblywoman
dickman,
assemblyman,
matthews,
assemblyman,
macarthur
and
assemblyman
levitt,
and
with
that
the
motion
passes,
so
I
will
close
the
work
session
and
move
on
to
our
next
bill.
So
with
that,
I
will
open
the
work
session
on
oh
you're
right,
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
got
to
hear
it
before
we
work
it.
A
So
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
385.
senate
bill.
385
is
brought
to
us
from
the
committee
on
judiciary,
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary,
on
behalf
of
the
legislative
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice.
It
requires
the
division
of
child
and
family
services
of
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
to
conduct
a
study
during
the
2021-22
legislative
interim
concerning
investments
in
juvenile
justice
prevention
activities
in
the
state.
A
Senator
it's
good
to
see
you
here
as
our
my
counterpart
in
the
senate.
As
you
also
chair,
legislative
operations
and
elections,.
R
Good
evening,
chair
miller,
members
of
the
senate
for
the
assembly
committee,
the
legislative
operations
and
elections
for
the
record
james
orenshawl,
represents
state
senate
district
21,
and
I
appreciate
you
hearing
the
bill
and
thank
you
for
sending
so
many
good
bills
over
for
our
committee
to
here.
You
know
our
sister
committee
relationship
here
I
think,
has
worked
well
and-
and
I
hope
we've
sent
you
some
good
bills,
but
we've
sent
us
a
lot
of
great
ones.
So
thank
you.
Senate
bill
385
came
out
of
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice.
R
I
was
very
lucky
to
serve
with
some
lumen
torres
and
assembly
monroe
moreno
on
that
interim
committee.
During
this
past
interim,
I
had
the
honor
of
chairing
that
committee
assembly.
Monroe
moreno
was
the
vice
chair
and
we
had
some
women
torres,
some
of
them
and
hanson
senator
hammond,
senator
former
senator
cancella.
We
had
a
you
know.
R
Bipartisan
group,
we
were
very
focused
on
trying
to,
of
course,
help
children,
but
also
in
the
juvenile
justice
arena,
try
to
prevent
children
from
ending
up
in
deeper
in
the
system
and
trying
to
see
if
they
can
avoid
state
commitments,
which
means
commitments
to
state
youth.
Correctional
facilities,
try
to
keep
children
who
do
get
in
trouble
with
the
law
closer
to
home.
R
385
is
a
unanimous
bipartisan
recommendation
that
came
out
of
the
interim
committee,
which
was
amended
over
on
the
senate
side,
and
the
amendment
did
take
away
the
fiscal
note,
so
that
made
it
a
little
more
palatable
for
the
money
committee
and
what
we're
asking
in
senate
bill
385
is
amended
is
for
the
division
of
child
and
family
services
to
really
study
what
they've
been
able
to
accomplish
in
terms
of
juvenile
justice
prevention
trying
to
keep
kids
from
ending
up.
You
know
in
the
system
and
trying
to
promote
diversion
programs.
R
R
You
know
what,
where
funds
can
be
spent
to
divert
kids
from
ending
up
committed
to
state
facilities
and
trying
to
keep
them
closer
to
home
and
trying
to
make
sure
that,
hopefully
they
won't
appear
again
in
in
a
court
or
you
know,
on
juvenile,
probation
or
youth
pearl.
With
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
we,
I
do
see
administrator
armstrong
on
zoom
and
I
appreciate
all
his
hard
work
and
commitment
to
youth
in
the
state
and,
if
there's
a
question,
I
get
stumped
on
I'd.
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
cheer,
and
thank
you
senator
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
It's
something
that
we
really
truly
need,
but
my
question
is:
when
we
go
to
section
1.5,
subsection
2
and
you
speak
of
the
study,
the
study
must
include
a
review
of
current
investments
in
juvenile
justice
prevention
activities
within
the
state.
I
I
it
just
kind
of
struck
me
review
the
current
investment.
R
James
orange
all
state
senate
district
21,
through
you,
chair
miller,
to
the
assembly
woman.
Certainly
there
are
many
and
I,
if
I
miss
any,
I
don't
want
to.
Hopefully
I
didn't
mean
to
exclude
any,
but
there
are
programs
in
southern
nevada
and
my
day
job
is
a
public
defender
in
juvenile
court.
So
I'm
I
get
to
see
a
lot
of
what
happens
there
and
down
in
juvenile
court
in
southern
nevada,
judge
bailey,
sonny
bailey.
R
She
started
what's
called
the
autism
court,
because
we've
had
many
kids
who've
been
arrested,
they
get
in
trouble
and
they're
brought
down
to
juvenile
detention
at
clark,
county
and
a
lot
of
times.
It
wasn't
ever
discovered
that
they
were
on
the
spectrum
and
she
has
a
she
developed,
a
court
she's
no
longer
there.
R
Those
are
just
some
examples.
I
know
that
on
the
state
side,
their
youth
parole
tries
to
help
children
once
they've
exited
state
youth
facilities.
I've,
certainly,
I
know
juvenile
probation
does
two
at
clark.
County
tries
to
help
kids
get
birth
certificates
if
they're,
trying
to
get
into
credit
retrieval
program
trying
to
get
through
and
get
their
high
school
diploma
or
ged.
So
I
think
that
there
there
are
many
different
programs
that
are
trying
to
help
children
land
on
their
feet
and
not
get
caught
up
back
in
the
system.
R
Certainly
judge
voy
and
judge
gibson
down
in
southern
nevada.
Very
often
a
court
hearing
you
know
bring
social
workers
together.
Folks
from
you
know
the
state
facilities
in
terms
of
trying
to
find
out.
You
know
if
maybe
home's,
not
an
option
right
now,
trying
to
find
another
placement
where
a
child
might
might
do
well
and
succeed.
R
You
know
our
our
former
colleague
assemblyman
tyrone
thompson.
You
know
was
pivotal
in
trying
to
help
the
starting,
shannon
west
center
for
independent
living
for
homeless,
youth
and
very
often
kids,
who
end
up
getting
arrested
and
in
delinquency
court.
If
home
either
isn't
an
option
or
is
such
a
such
a
bad
option
that
the
child
is
not
going
to
succeed
there.
Sometimes
the
court
social
workers
who
work
with
the
defense
attorneys
and
the
prosecutors
will
try
to
place
the
child
there
at
shannon
west.
So
there
are
many
options.
R
S
Thank
you,
ross
armstrong,
administrator
for
the
division
of
child
family
services
and
senator
orrin
shaw
hit
on
some
of
the
great
activities
that
are
happening
in
terms
of
juvenile
justice
prevention.
Just
to
understand
the
scale.
The
state
of
nevada
spends
about
5.5
million
dollars
in
state
general
fund
on
juvenile
justice
prevention.
The
vast
majority
of
that
goes
to
our
county
camps,
china
spring
and
spring
mountain
for
those
of
you
that
are
on
the
finance
committees.
You
know
the
discussion
about
the
china
spring
funding
this
session.
S
That's
compared
to
the
26
million
dollars
a
year.
We
spend
in
corrections,
and
so
one
of
the
ideas
of
taking
a
look
at
the
current
investments
in
juvenile
justice
prevention
is
to
look
at
the
the
scale
and
their
effectiveness.
There
have
been
kind
of
one-off
bills
in
the
past
that
fund
specific
programs.
S
I
think
two
sessions
ago
there
was
a
bill
that
gave
each
judicial
district
some
money,
and
so
part
of
is
taking
a
look
at
how
we've
invested
in
the
past
and
determining
if
there's
a
better
way
to
structure
it
in
particular,
to
take
a
look
and
see
if
there
are
any
ways
that
we
can
encourage
savings
in
the
corrections
arena
and
and
invest
those
savings
in
further
prevention.
So,
like
the
specific
program
senator
orn
shall
hit
on,
but
sometimes
I
think
that
scale
understanding
we
spend
that
you
know
five
million
dollars
on
prevention.
S
The
most
most
of
that
is
on
essentially
corrections
light
compared
to
the
26
million
dollars
we
stand
on.
We
spend
on
state
juvenile
corrections.
Sometimes
that
scale
is
helpful
in
thinking
about
juvenile
justice
prevention,
there's
also
a
federal
program.
We
receive
a
formula
grant
that's
a
couple
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year
that
we
also
grant
out
to
local
entities
working
in
prevention,
work.
D
Thank
you
such
a
wonderful
program
and
you
always
bring
our
younger
citizens.
You
know
I've
been
listening
to
a
couple
of
your
bills
and
I'm
so
impressed.
I
appreciate
your
service
to
our
community,
but
I
do
have
a
follow-up
follow-up
chair
follow
up,
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
ma'am!
What's
that,
what's
the
data
like
when,
where
you're,
showing
success
or
failure
rate
with
all
of
the
programs,
do
you
have
a
spreadsheet
that
you
know
will
look
that
you
could
look
at,
and
I
just
want
that
for
future
reference?
R
Asking
thank
you:
james
orange
all
state
senate
district
21
to
you
and
through
your
chair
to
the
assembly
woman.
I
appreciate
your
kind
words
and
certainly
on
the
interim
committee.
You
know
assemblyman
torres
vice
chair,
monroe,
moreno
and
the
other
members.
They
were
pivotal
in
trying
to
advocate
for
legislation
to
try
to
keep
kids
out
of
the
system.
Administrator
armstrong
was
duffy.
They
were
great
to
work
with
and
just
tremendously
committed
to
this
issue.
R
For
me,
personally,
success
means
a
child.
Not
you
don't
see
the
child
back
in
arrested
or
in
court
again.
My
the
clients
that
I
feel
are
my
best
successes
are
the
ones
I
never
see
again
never
hear
from
because
they
didn't
come
back,
didn't
get
in
trouble
again,
didn't
get
a
violation
of
probation
or
a
violation
of
youth
parole
as
to
data.
R
That's
been
a
struggle
through
the
years,
and
I
know
that
between
the
statewide
juvenile
justice
oversight,
commission,
the
division
of
child
family
services,
the
county,
juvenile
probation
offices,
there's
a
big
effort
and
there's
been
been
an
effort
now
for
the
last
few
years
to
try
to
get
more
data
as
to
what's
working.
What
what
isn't
working-
and
I
think
that
we
are
close
to
getting
better
data
soon,
but
I
think
that
it's
still
a
little
ways
away.
R
S
Yes
again,
ross
armstrong
for
the
record
in
2017
the
legislature
passed
ab-472,
which
was
the
juvenile
justice
reform
act
of
that
year,
and
in
that
bill
it
required
that
all
of
our
juvenile
justice
serving
agencies
get
on
the
same
data
system,
and
so
we
are
there
now
and
we
are
able
to.
We
are
working
now
on
building
those
reports
to
better
track
the
youth
from
our
county
probation
departments
to
the
state.
S
So
for
those
of
you,
maybe
not
familiar
with
juvenile
justice,
our
county
probation
departments,
our
counties
do
the
bulk
of
the
prevention
work
in
the
community,
those
cases
that
are
escalated
where
there's
a
high
risk
to
the
community
and
complex
needs
of
the
youth
are
committed
to
state
custody.
I
can
tell
you
that
we've
made
tremendous
progress.
You
know
just
maybe
three
or
four
years
ago
we
had
an
average
of
200
to
220
youth
in
our
state
facilities
at
any.
S
A
Thank
you,
members,
any
other
questions.
A
All
right
doesn't
appear
that
we
have
any
additional
questions.
So
with
that,
thank
you
senator.
I
will
go
ahead
and
open
testimony
for
anyone,
there's
no
one
else
in
the
room,
so
I
know
there's
no
one
in
the
room,
but
for
anyone
broadcasting.
If
there's
anyone
on
the
line
that
would
like
to
testify
in
support
for
sb
385.
G
A
Thank
you.
Do
broadcasting.
Do
we
have
any
anyone
interested
in
calling
and
testifying
in
opposition
of
sb
385.
G
A
You
do
we
have
anyone
in
online
for
neutral.
A
R
R
During
this
interim,
we
were
able
to
have
two
in-person
meetings
at
the
grand
sawyer
state
building
before
the
pandemic
hit,
then
the
pandemic
hit
and
we
weren't
really
sure
what
we
were
going
to
do
or
how
we
were
going
to
function,
but
the
lcb
broadcasting,
patrick
guynan,
eileen,
o'grady,
carly
o'crent,
just
tremendous
staff
that
helped
us
kind
of
learn
this
technology
and
we
were
able
to
have
six.
I
believe
I
think
it
was
six
more
meetings
via
zoom
and
recommend
ten
bill
drafts.
R
This
is
one
of
them
and
we
did
have
to
amend
it
a
little
bit
due
to
the
fiscal
note,
but
I
still
feel
that
this
is
something
that
will
help
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
and
helped
the
legislature
in
2023
try
to
work
on
the
goals
of
less
kids
getting
committed,
and
it
sounds
like
we've
already.
You
know
made
a
lot
of
progress
hearing
administrator
armstrong,
but
thank
you
for
your
time
appreciate
it.
A
A
Okay,
members,
we
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
work
session.
The
bill
that
we
just
heard
senate
bill
385
didn't
seem
to
be
too
many
questions
or
complications,
so
we're
gonna,
I'm
gonna
turn
it
over
to
our
policy.
Analyst.
Mr
sturm
give
him
a
few
minutes
to
collect
his
thoughts
because
as
much
as
we
think
things
move
quickly
for
us
at
this
point
it
it
moves
even
faster
for
lcb
staff.
So
we'll
give
him
a
moment
when
you're
ready,
mr
sturm.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair
pepper,
sturm,
your
committee
policy,
analyst
lcb.
A
Not
seeing
anyone,
I
will
accept
a
motion.
I'd
like
to
make
that
motion
to
do
pass.
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
do
pass
by
vice
chair
haudegee
for
senate
bill
385.
Do
I
have
a
second
a
second
by
assemblyman
levitt
members,
any
questions
or
comments
on
the
motion
all
right
with
that
we
will
go
ahead
and
take
a
vote
all
those
in
favor.
Please
say
I
I
anyone
anyone
opposed
okay,
we
have
one
from
assemblyman
mcarthur
anyone
else.
A
Okay,
with
that
the
motion
passes
with
the
members
that
are
present
and
I
feel
like
assemblyman
mcarthur,
always
knows
when
I'm
looking
at
him
to
give
him
a
floor
statement
so
that
he
knows
to
oppose
the
bill
because
then
it
would
be
super
awkward
and
I
would
never
do
that
so.
Instead,
I'm
gonna
assign
it
to
assemblyman
levitt
all
right
with
that
we
will
close
a
work
session
and
move
on
to
our
final
item
on
the
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment,
so
we
will
take
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment
broadcasting.
G
A
Thank
you
with
that.
I
will
close
public
comment
so
with
that
we
have
finished
all
of
our
business
for
the
day.
I
would
like
you
members
to
know
that
we
will
have
a
he.
We
will
have
a
meeting
on
thursday
at
four
o'clock
or
four
o'clock
ish
on
the
27th,
and
it
will
be
primarily
at
this
point
to
work
session,
a
number
of
bills
that
we
still
have.
We
may
be
hearing
something
new.
It
all
depends,
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
moving
parts
and
things
change
rapidly
at
this
point
in
session.
A
So
please
do
plan
on
having
another
meeting
and
it
also
stay
tuned
because
there
may
be
some
other
call
of
the
chairs
meetings
that
are
thrown
up,
but
with
that
we
are
done
for
the
day.
So
this
meeting
is
adjourned.