►
From YouTube: 4/21/2023 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
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
Good
morning,
everyone
welcome
back
to
assembly,
Judiciary
I
know:
we've
had
a
few
days
reprieve
as
its
deadline
week
and
we're
up
against
another
deadline
in
a
few
days,
so
welcome
to
everyone
here
in
Las,
Vegas
and
anyone
that
may
join
us
in
I'm,
sorry
here
in
Carson,
City
and
anyone
that
may
join
us
in
Las
Vegas,
as
well
as
anyone
watching
online
with
that
secretary.
Please
take
the
role.
A
And
with
that
please
mark
assemblywoman
Hanson
present
when
she
arrives
again
just
a
few
reminders.
Everyone
please
turn
down
any
of
your
electronic
devices.
Also,
we
will
have
a
public
comment
at
the
end
of
today's
hearing.
Today
we
have
two
bills
that
we're
hearing
we're
first,
starting
with
Senate
Bill
55,
presented
by
John
McCormick,
which
revises
various
Provisions
relating
to
courts
and
with
that
I
will
officially
open
the
hearing,
Mr
McCormick
when
you're
settled
and
ready.
C
Thank
you,
chair
I
was
hoping
to
hide,
but
my
name
is
John
McCormick
I'm,
the
assistant
Court
Administrator,
at
the
Supreme
Court.
The
last
name
is
McCormick
and
I
believe
with
me.
In
Las,
Vegas
is
Judge
Melissa
Saragosa
with
Las
Vegas,
Justice,
Court
and
we're
here
today
to
present
SB
55.
C
and
at
the
risk
of
jinxing
myself.
I
will
say
that
this
is
primarily
a
cleanup,
Bill
and
obviously
we're
going
off
the
first
reprint
here
in
the
section
one
was
deleted
by
Amendment
sex
section.
Two
of
the
bill
changes
the
language
regarding
Clerks
of
justice
courts
from
Deputy
clerk
to
clerk.
So
it's
a
wording
change
and
that
that
occurs
several
times
in
the
bill.
C
Section
three
was
deleted
by
amendment
in
the
other
house,
section
four
again
deals
with
clerk
of
court
and
Court
administrators
for
justice
courts,
particularly
the
large
ones
like
Las
Vegas
section.
Five
of
this
bill
amends
the
jurisdiction
statute
for
justice
courts
to
remove
a
provision
that
currently
allows
the
Nevada
Highway
Patrol
to
file
tickets
into
all
adjacent
counties
and
townships.
So
it
would
require
that
those
site
those
citations
are
filed
into
the
Township
in
which
they
occur.
C
Section
six
of
the
bill
allows
the
transfer
of
cases
in
a
Justice
Court
when
the
entire
bench
has
to
recuse
or
is
disqualified.
Judge
ergos
I
have
some
examples
on
that
one
but
say
it's
in
the
case
of
when
a
member
of
the
bench
becomes
a
victim
of
an
offense,
and
so
none
of
the
other
judges
on
the
court
would
be
comfortable
hearing
that
case
and
be
transferred
to
another
Justice
Court
to
be
appropriately
handled
section.
C
Seven
is
another
section
that
deals
with
the
clerk
of
court
Deputy
Clerk
of
Court
language
issue,
Section
8.
This
section
impacts
what
the
amount
of
credit
people
get
for:
completing
community
service
when
ordered
by
the
court.
Currently
the
statute
is
or
the
statute
requires
that
the
course
must
provide
credit
of
ten
dollars
or
the
amount
of
the
state
minimum
wage
for
that
community
service.
We
would
like
to
change
that.
C
So
the
amount
of
credit
for
community
service
is
not
less
than
the
state
minimum
wage,
but
it
would
allow
courts
to
in
fact
give
more
credit
than
that
10.
Is
it
10,
50
right
now,
I
think
it's
10.50,
you
know
just
because
that
amount
may
not
necessarily
be
appropriate
in
most
jurisdictions.
C
You
know
the
the
median
hourly
wage
in
Washoe
County
is
25
36
in
Clark
County,
it's
2421.
Nevada's
median
wage
is
18.22.
So
it's
just
to
update
that
language
to
allow
an
appropriate
amount
of
credit
for
those
community
service
hours.
Excuse
me
and
then
we
have
a
sections.
9
10,
11
and
12
are
all
again
removing
Deputy
from
the
clerk
language.
C
So
it
is
the
clerk
of
the
court,
not
a
deputy
Clerk
and
then
finally,
the
bill
repeals
two
sections
of
Statute,
those
being
NRS,
4.290
and
4.300
that
are
I
would
wager
to
say
Antiquated
language
dealing
with
successor
JPS,
so
who
takes
over
if
an
office
becomes
vacant,
because
standard
practice
is
that
the
County
commission
for
the
county
in
which
the
township
is
located,
does
an
appointment
process
for
vacant
offices
and
this
just
repeals
those
old
sections
that
conflict
with
sort
of
modern
practice,
and
with
that
that's
a
brief
overview
of
the
bill.
D
Thank
you
good
morning,
chair
Miller
and
members
of
the
Judiciary
Committee.
My
name
is
Melissa
Saragosa,
it's
s-a-r-a-g-o-s-a
and
I'm
with
the
Las
Vegas
Justice
Court
Mr
McCormick
has
presented
most
of
what
I
had
to
say,
because
there's
really
what
I
would
call
a
simple
kind
of
a
boring
Bill
almost,
which
is,
which
is
the
kind
I
hope
you
like
section.
Four
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
this
changing
of
the
language
from
the
deputy
clerk
to
the
clerk
and
give
you
a
little
historical
perspective
years
ago.
D
The
clerk
of
the
court
actually
fell
under
the
county
clerk
that
separated
years
ago,
and
this
language
was
just
never
updated.
So
it
left
us
in
a
position
where
there
is
no
statute
that
exists
that
either
authorizes
or
says
who
the
clerk
of
the
court
is.
We
just
we've
been
using
the
chief
judge
that
rotates
every
time
we
have
a
new
chief
judge
come
into
place.
D
In
reality,
the
person
who
is
the
clerk
of
the
court
is
our
court
administrator
and
we
didn't
want
the
court
administrator
to
consistently
be
referred
to
as
the
deputy
clerk,
so
we're
trying
to
update
that
language.
Since
that
separation
from
the
county
clerk
took
place,
we've
also
stricken
some
language
in
here
that
required
the
clerk
of
the
court
to
post
a
bond
that
just
isn't
necessary.
D
So
that's
the
purpose
of
changing
that
Deputy
clerk
language
I'm,
going
to
skip
ahead
to
section
six
and
as
Mr
McCormick
stated
in
Las
Vegas
Justice
Court
we've
had
several
instances
where
either
a
family
member
of
a
judge
or
the
judge
themselves
was
the
victim
of
an
offense
and
then
that
criminal
case
came
into
our
court.
Obviously
everybody
on
the
bench
had
has
a
personal
relationship
and
even
the
appearance
of
that
case
being
handled
unfairly.
D
If
any
one
of
us
were
to
hear
it
yet
in
this
particular
statute,
4.3713,
while
it
allowed
for
the
transfer
of
cases
in
certain
circumstances,
that
was
not
one
of
them
and
what
would
happen
in
order
for
us
to
handle
that
case
properly
and
and
deal
with
our
judicial
cannons.
We
would
have
to
bring
a
senior
judge
in
and
pay
a
senior
judge
to
handle
a
case
that
could
have
been
handled
by
one
of
our
neighboring
townships.
D
So
that
is
the
purpose
there
and
then
there
is
one
other
part
that
just
didn't
make
sense
in
part
A.
It
allowed
us
to
transfer
a
case
involving
criminal
conduct
and
but
it
required
that
the
defendant
had
to
appear
before
a
magistrate
before
that
happened.
Well,
if
that
magistrate
is
the
one
that
has
the
conflict
of
interest,
then
that
man
magistrate
can't
hear
the
case
and
then
transfer
it.
They
should
take
no
action
on
it
whatsoever
in
order
to
be
in
alignment
with
our
judicial
cannons.
D
So
that
is
why
we've
stricken
that
portion
of
subsection
a
finally
I'll
just
make
one
brief
additional
comment
on
Section
8,
where
we
talked
about
the
making
the
credit,
the
community
service,
credit
towards
any
fines
or
fees
a
floor
instead
of
a
mandate
that
it's
tied
to
minimum
wage,
because
when
minimum
wage
has
changed,
change
like
it's
ten
dollars
and
fifty
cents,
it's
very
hard
to
make
that
calculation.
D
D
Fact,
Las
Vegas
Justice
Court.
We
had
looked
amongst
ourselves
to
make
it
fifteen
dollars
an
hour
credit
towards
fines
and
fees,
and
we
found
we
couldn't
because
of
this
statute,
so
that
was
one
of
the
other
three
reasons
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
other
questions
that
you
may
have.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
E
Thank
you,
chair,
I
may
have
too
so.
If
we
have
to
go
to
a
second
round,
it
is
a
pretty
easy
bill
and
I
and
I
appreciate
the
work
from
the
as
introduced
Bill
to
what
we've
got,
because
one
of
my
concerns
was
section
one
and
I
believe
the
intent
in
taking
section
one
out
is
that
we're
not
limiting
Union
justice
courts
to
not
be
open
on
Sunday.
Is
that
correct.
C
For
the
record,
John
McCormick,
yes,
assemblywoman-
that
that
was
the
intent.
That
section
got
a
little
confusing,
and
so
we
just
decided
to
exit
and
make
the
bill
significantly
simpler,
and
that
is
the
idea
is
that
justice
courts
particularly
are
available
at
all
hours
to
take
application
for
protection
orders,
in
particular
great.
E
Okay,
so
my
other
question
was
about
the
minimum
wage
and
and
the
15
an
hour
I'm
just
wondering
if
it
wouldn't
make
more
sense
to
have
language
like
basic
market
value
or
something
like
that
like
nobody's
even
getting
15,
you
go
to
In
and
Out
and
you're
getting
18
an
hour,
so
I
just
I,
don't
know,
maybe
there's
some
more
permissive
language
that
doesn't
put
the
actual
dollar
amount,
because
I
do
worry
about
that
in
statute
when
this
doesn't
get
opened
again,
for
you
know,
15
years,
and
we
have
to
change
it
to
you
know
fifty
dollars
an
hour
I,
you
know
that's
my
concern.
C
Thank
you
for
the
record
John
McCormick.
The
idea
was
at
least
in
drafting,
was
that
we
made
that
the
floor,
and
so
it
can
go
up.
There's
no
ceiling.
You
can
never
give
less
than
minimum
wage,
but
a
court
is
not
prohibited
from
matching
market
value
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thanks
for
the
presentation,
my
question
comes
in
section
five,
on
with
the
removal
of
section
six
with
the
highway
patrol
and
the
jurisdiction
of
the
the
Justice
Court
in,
in
my
experience
that
I
know
that
they
can
be
quite
transient,
especially
with
shortages
now,
where
they're
having
to
cross
their
normal,
beat
areas
and
I
thought
that
this
provision
was
in
there
to
kind
of
help
them
to
where
jurisdiction
of
an
arrest
in
one
area
to
have
to
come
back
to
that
area.
F
C
Thank
you
again,
John
McCormick,
for
the
record
on
that.
We
found
that
and
I
think
that
was
originally
intent.
But
sometimes
what
happens?
Is
tickets
get
filed
into
a
place
that
is
very
sort
of
inconvenient
for
Citizens,
for
example,
I'll
use
a
couple
communities
in
in
eastern
Nevada
an
event
an
offense
occurs
say
in
White
Pine
County.
C
Sometimes
it
would
get
filed
into
Eureka
County,
so
people
from
Ely
would
then
have
to
drive
70
miles
to
Eureka
to
appear
in
court
and
address
the
ticket,
so
we're
trying
and
I
understand
trying
to
balance
the
the
issue
with
NH
with
with
nhp
and
that
but
I
think
it.
We
kind
of
aired
on
the
side
of
maybe
access
to
justice
for
lack
of
a
better
term
to
make
sure
people
are
are
addressing
their
violations
in
in
the
community
in
which
it
occurred.
C
And,
frankly,
with
the
with
the
passage
maybe
116
last
session
and
the
shift
to
civil
infractions,
that's
opened
up
and
a
lot
more
can
be
done
online.
Now,
and
you
know
this
Shameless
plug
for
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts.
We
didn't.
We
built
a
an
online
traffic
resolution
system
that
a
number
of
of
courts
are
using
we're
trying
to
to
expand
that
in
Las.
C
Vegas
Justice
Court
is
working
on
that
same
sort
of
initiative,
so
that
was
the
idea
was
to
to
clarify
you
got
a
ticket
in
White
Pine
County,
it's
filed
in
White,
Pine
County,
for
example,.
D
D
The
one
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
add
was
that
almost
all
of
our
courts
will
offer
there's
two
aspects
of
it
when
it
comes
to
an
officer's
presentation
of
any
testimony,
if
it's
a
civil
infraction-
and
it
goes
to
a
contested
hearing,
that
officer
is
authorized
to
provide
their
written
anything
that's
under
an
affidavit,
so
the
words
that
are
on
the
ticket
itself,
plus
any
narrative
that
they
write
on
there
and
any
narrative
that
they
want
to
present
to
the
court
may
be
done
in
writing.
D
So
they
wouldn't
have
to
travel
to
a
different
jurisdiction
to
present
that
testimony.
Additionally,
if
it
were
an
other,
if
it
was
a
criminal
ticket,
almost
all
of
our
rural
jurisdictions
will
allow
them
to
testify
via
video
conferencing.
So
that
would
also
eliminate
the
need
for
the
officer
to
travel.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
with
that.
Then
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
Senate
bill
55..
Our
next
bill
is
Senate
Bill
62,
which
I
will
open
the
hearing
for
Senate
bill
62..
This
is
also
presented
by
judge
Zaragoza
and
Mr
John
McCormick.
This
bill
revises
Provisions
relating
to
the
commission
on
judicial
discipline
and
with
that
please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
C
Thank
you,
chair
again
for
the
record.
John
McCormick
assistant,
Court,
Administrator,
Supreme,
Court
and
I
think
judge
zaragos
is
off
the
hook
on
SB
62..
Luckily,
and
hopefully
this
will
be
even
simpler
than
the
last
one.
You
know
again,
maybe
jinxing
myself,
but
what
this
bill
does
is
and
again,
obviously
speaking
to
the
first
reprint
is
clarify:
who
has
jurisdiction
over
potential
ethical
violations
made
by
a
lawyer
who
is
running
for
judge
and
what
it
does.
C
Is
it
clarifies
that
if
there
is
a
potential
ethical
violation,
you
know
during
the
campaign
before
they
take
the
bench
that
will
be
handled
by
the
State
Bar
and
their
office
of
discipline?
And
then,
if
it's
after
they
take
the
bench,
then
the
judicial
discipline
commission
will
handle
those
and
then
so
that
leaves
the
question
of
non-attorney
Judges,
which
would
remain
under
the
judicial
discipline
umbrella
and
just
a
little
background.
C
This
bill
came
out
of
the
Supreme
Court's
commission
to
study
the
rules
and
statutes
pertaining
to
the
commission
on
judicial
discipline
and
the
rule
code
of
conduct.
I
think
that
was
the
full
title
we
gave
it.
Sometimes
we
we
get
all
crazy
in
our
administrative
dockets,
but
again
this
was
a
recommendation
out
of
that
committee
and
the
that
report
has
been
provided
as
well.
If
you
have
further
questions
on
that.
C
A
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you.
Mr
McCormick
for
your
presentations,
short
sweet
and
to
the
point.
I
did
have
a
question,
though
about
section
three
two:
it
says
if
a
judge
is
licensed
to
practice
law
in
this
in
this
state,
could
you
please
explain?
Is
there
any
circumstance
where
someone
is
running
for
the
position
of
Judge
in
our
state
and
they're
not
licensed
to
practice
here.
C
Thank
you,
John
McCormick,
for
the
record
for
district
court
judges,
a
court
of
appeals,
judges,
Supreme,
Court
Justices.
There
are
statutory
requirements;
they
have
to
be
an
admitted
member
of
the
Nevada
Barr,
with
certain
amounts
of
experience
practicing
in
the
state
and
then
for
justice
of
the
peace
and
Municipal
Court
judges
in
jurisdictions
of
a
certain
size.
So
over
a
hundred
thousand
generally,
they
have
to
be
licensed.
Attorneys
members
of
the
Nevada
State
Bar.
C
There
are
some
of
those
smaller
rural
jurisdictions
where
the
judge
is
not
required
to
be
an
attorney,
and
so
those
are.
That
would
only
be
the
case,
but
generally
to
be
a
judge
where
there
is
a
statutory
requirement.
You
have
to
be
a
lawyer.
You
have
to
be
a
member
of
the
Nevada
Barr
that
that
that's
just
sort
of
a
drafting
thing,
I
guess.
A
C
I
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
and
thank
you
for
this
bill.
I
was
wondering
just
to
clarify
the
subsection
2
applies
to
when
whatever
offense
was
was
done
correct.
So
if
there
was
something
professionally
that
the
judge
did,
while
they
were
in
a
candidate
for
office,
then
that
would
still
be
under
the
bar,
even
if
it
was
discovered
after
they
took
the
bench.
Is
that
correct.
C
Thank
you,
John
McCormick,
for
the
record
yeah.
It
clarifies
that
that
if
the
offense,
the
alleged
the
alleged
offense,
shall
we
say,
occurred
when
they
were
say
running
for
office
and
that's
generally
the
primary
concern
that
would
be
subject
to
Bar
discipline
and
then
when
they
took
the
bench,
any
subsequent
event
would
be
under
the
the
purview
of
the
discipline.
Commission.
I
Proceed
so
if
you're
required
to
be
a
licensed
attorney
in
the
state
of
Nevada
to
be
a
judge,
is
it
possible
then
that
the
bar
could
disbar
you
while
you're?
Actually
a
sitting
judge.
C
For
the
record,
General,
McCormick
and
I,
that
would
be
the
case,
but
I
believe
that
could
still
occur
now,
if,
in
the
event
that
a
an
attorney
judge
did
something
that
violated
the
attorney
code
of
conduct,
the
attorney
Cannons
of
Ethics,
but
not
the
judicial
candidate,
can't
think
off
the
top
of
my
head,
a
case
where
that
would
necessarily
occur.
They
could
be
disciplined
by
the
bar
up
to
disbarment
and
then
they
would
no
longer
be
qualified
for
the
seat.
So
then
we'd
have
that
whole
mess.
C
Correct
chair,
Miller
John
McCormack,
the
record
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
that
has
not
occurred
because
generally
the
the
canons,
while
the
judicial
cannons,
are,
are
obviously
more
specific
to
to
judge
Behavior
very
similar
ethical
obligations.
C
Another
case
I
could
point
out
is
say
it
was
an
attorney
who
was
managing
a
client
trust
account
when
they
were
still
practicing,
and
there
was
some
alleged
malfeasance
there
that
wouldn't
necessarily
pertain
to
being
a
judge,
because
judges
obviously
don't
have
that
same
trust,
account
requirement.
A
So
I
I
believe
what
we're
trying
to
get
at
is
so,
let's
say,
attorney-client
privilege
as
the
as
the
attorney
that
is
violated.
They've
now
run
for
judge.
They
now
have
become
a
judge.
The
bar
reviews
it,
the
bar,
revokes
the
the
license
that
person
is
now
on
the
bench
if
the
bar
revokes
that
license.
Will
that
also
remove
their
qualification
then
to
practice
as
a
judge
on
the
BR
on
the
bench,
even
though
they
were
elected.
C
John
McCormick
for
the
record.
That
is
my
understanding,
because
it
would
then
violate
the
statutory
qualifications
for
the
office
to
which
they
were
elected
and
then
I
think.
The
discipline
commission
would
then
have
to
get
involved
in
that
way.
A
I,
don't
believe
we
have
any
additional
questions
at
this
time.
Assemblywoman
LaRue
hatch.
J
Are
there
any
powers
that
the
discipline
commission
has
that
the
State
Bar
doesn't
so,
for
example,
if
someone
commits
something
that
would
warrant
removal
from
the
bench
under
the
current
system,
if
we
adopt
this
and
they
they
did
it
before
they
took
office,
would
the
State
Bar
also
have
the
power
to
remove
them
from
the
bench.
C
Thank
you,
John
McCormick,
for
the
record.
The
State
Bar
has
the
authority
over
their
licensure
as
an
attorney,
so
I
think
in
that
case
say
the
bar
said
your
whatever
the
alleged
offense
was
was
so
egregious.
We
are
just
barring
you
and
it
went
through
the
appeal
process
Etc
and
that
was
found.
Then
they
were
no
longer
an
attorney.
Then
the
discipline
commission
would
come
into
question
because
they're
no
longer
qualified
to
be
a
judge
pursuant
to
the
statutory
qualifications.
D
Yes,
chair,
Miller
judge,
Melissa
Saragosa
again
appearing.
Thank
you,
while
I
thought,
I
was
going
to
be
off
the
hook
on
this.
One
I
did
want
to
just
offer
one
piece
of
information
in
response
to
assembly,
woman,
Summers,
Armstrong's
question
for
reference
ma'am,
the
provision
that
talks
about
the
qualifications
of
a
Justice
of
the
Peace
comes
from
NRS
4.010,
and
it
is
in
any
County
whose
population
is
100
000
or
more.
D
The
justice
of
the
peace
or
a
candidate
for
justice
abuse
must
be
an
attorney
who's
licensed
in
the
state
of
Nevada
and
have
five
years
of
legal
experience
prior
to
being
a
candidate.
However,
for
our
smaller
jurisdictions
that
are
less
than
100
000
population
in
the
county,
they
are
not
required
to
have
those
eligibility
requirements.
They
are
only
requirement,
is
high
school
diploma.
Okay,.
D
Are
you
yes,
ma'am
I
I
am
in
support
of
the
bill
as
Mr
McCormick
has
presented
it
and
I
do
think
that
it
makes
a
clarification
for
all
judges
that
are
running
to
have
that
distinction
between
who's
responsible
for
handling
any
discipline.
What's
happened
in
the
past
is
that
problem
where
you
have
somebody
running
for
the
position
and
there
might
be
a
potential
violation
and
nobody
knows
who's
going
to
handle
it,
and
this
would
clarify
that.
Okay,
thank.
A
A
A
A
Thank
you
for
that.
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
testimony
and
Mr
McCormick
is
waving
his
final
remarks
so
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
Senate
here,
the
close
the
assembly
hearing
on
Senate
bill
62.
with
that
our
last
order
of
business
today
is
public
comment.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
Carson
City?
That
would
like
to
make
public
comment?
A
A
Thank
you
for
that.
So
with
that
first
I
will
say
this
is
the
first
time
I've
had
a
half
hour
committee
meeting
since
I've
chaired
ledge
Ops.
So
this
may
probably
be
our
final
last
time
ever
doing
that,
but
we'll
see
we
are
scheduled
for
Monday
at
8
30.
So
everyone
have
a
great
weekend
and
this
meeting
is
adjourned.