2021 Bills and Bill Draft Requests
SB 403 (BDR 17-30 - January 23, 2020): REVISES PROVISIONS REGARDING LEGISLATIVE MEASURES.
Makes various changes regarding legislative measures, including requiring a certain number of bills from each legislator to be given a hearing, requiring the Legislature’s published list of bill draft requests (BDRs) to include only BDR summaries that provide a detailed description of the proposed changes in the BDR, providing that the BDR List may not identify the names of any legislators who requested a BDR, providing that each legislator may choose not to have his or her name printed on a bill for a certain period of time during a legislative session, and authorizing each legislator to request one BDR during a special legislative session.
Problem:
Under current rules, a chair of a committee to which a given bill was referred has the sole discretion to determine whether that policy proposal will be heard. In today’s hyper-partisan political environment, this means that the chair may decide the fate of needed legislation based purely on the personality behind the bill rather than the merits of the proposal. Indeed, this happens on an increasingly frequent basis.
Solution:
Since restoring public faith in the legislative process has become an important factor in our state, this bill seeks to ameliorate the irrational actions of individuals and provide duly elected legislators an opportunity to have a limited number of their bills heard and decided on the merits of the proposal. This bill accomplishes that in three important ways:
1. The BDR summaries provided with each of the BDRs must be detailed enough to see the basic tenets of the bill;
2. The names of the legislator are not published until after the first hearing unless the legislator requests their name be published; and
3. That each legislator is guaranteed a hearing on a limited number of their bills.
One of the most important aspects in a representative government is that the elected representative have an opportunity to voice the concerns of their constituents. When personalities prevail over policy, partisan politics is allowed to prevail over the best interests of the state when a decision on a hearing is based upon an irrational basis. Worse still the citizens’ voices are silenced simply because their representative belongs to the “wrong party.” These are hardly legitimate reasons not to hear a bill. While prior legislatures offered a certain level of compromise and cooperation, today’s politics is exceptionally divisive and uncooperative. Thus, a rule change is necessary to assure every district has legitimate access to the deliberative process.
The first part provides a requirement for detailed summaries on each proposal. Instead of merely stating “Relating to Education,” for example, the summary of the proposal should outline in a clear way what the bill seeks to do and generally how it proposes to accomplish its goals.
The second part allows a legislator to have his bill presented in initial form on its merits, not on who it is that is bringing it. Of course, many will want to prominently display their name as they may feel they have the political capital to get it heard simply because they brought it. But most, particularly those that don’t align well with the political-power-holders, would be able to keep personalities out of the equation and get the bill heard simply by describing it with enough detail that its merits stand on their own. This assures that the committee is considering a bill because it has merit, not because any particular legislator brought the bill.
The third part is the catch-all for those that simply want to have their bill heard no matter the policy or personality issues. It is surprising to some that even the more radical legislators have good ideas. This allows those ideas to be heard.
Every legislator, regardless of party, should have a chance to make a proposal on the record and to have it considered on its merits. Parties in power change, and we have seen what happens when successive leaders simply try to undo what the predecessor has done. It damages public faith in the process. Of course, not every bill a legislator proposes should be given a guaranteed hearing – that would be unworkable practically given the number of bills a legislator can bring and the short session in which it must make it through the process. But each legislator should be guaranteed a few hearings and consideration on the merits. And every citizen deserves to have their representative heard.
SB 130 (BDR 24-37 - February 24, 2020): PROVIDES FOR A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY.
This bill proposes to amend how we elect nominees for the Presidency of the United States, changing it from an antiquated “caucus” method to the same method we choose party nominees for every other elected office: a Primary Election. This bill does NOT seek to alter the date for the primary - that’s for another bill.
Problem:
The 2018 and 2020 Caucuses demonstrated the need for a modern way of nominating our candidates for President. Though Nevada started out with a primary election for President, the state has gone back and forth between a primary and caucus election some seven times, with different requirements each time. As currently established, a voter can only vote for their nominee at the caucus. No absentee votes are allowed, and as we saw in 2018, thousands found it impossible to get into the caucus sites. In 2020, at least one caucus site was delayed for a lack of ballots, and then it took days to complete the tally, largely because the votes were taken on paper ballots. And ballot security was about as tight as a high school election for class president. No voting machines, no integrity checks, no confidence.
Solution:
The solution is simple: go to a primary election that asks voters to vote for all elected offices all at the same time, using the same machines and processes. This bill accomplishes this by doing the following:
1. Presidential nominations will take place with primary elections for all other candidates;
2. The primary process will substantially reduce the cost of elections to taxpayers;
3. The primary process provides access to the polls through all the absentee and early voting currently provided in the existing primary election;
4. The primary election will have substantially faster return data; and
5. The primary election will enjoy greater ballot security and thus greater voter confidence.
Many say that our presidential selection process is so important that we should do it separately, and first. Yet it has only been recently that we had an early caucus, and it’s doubtful that the timing alone was responsible for the candidate attention we received. It was similar to other states who had their primaries later in May and June.
Moreover, because they do not use the machines and systems in the counties to hold the elections, they simply add cost and reduce voter confidence. As we saw this last election, there were “discrepancies” in the voting that put the counties in the impossible position of having to explain what they could not explain. And the caucus system is even less secure.
Ultimately, thousands may have been denied the opportunity to vote in years past because of an antiquated system that allows only in-person voting, whether early or on primary day. No absentee ballots are allowed. And rather than simply adding the presidential candidates to an existing election, we pay for a separate election altogether. Instead, we should simply move to a primary that coincides with the primary for all elections. It reduces the cost and increases access to the ballots and voter confidence.
SB 88 (BDR 36-51 - April 29, 2020): PROVIDES FOR PUBLIC APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY ACTIONS IMPOSED.
This bill proposes to require Legislative approval of any Executive emergency action lasting greater than 30 days, and requires all agencies and regulatory boards to impose restrictions no greater than those imposed by the Governor.
Problem:
No Governor should be given the power to act indefinitely without the confirming voice of the citizens of the state. If we learned anything from the actions of the Governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is that the citizens of this state should be given an opportunity, though their representatives, to weigh-in on any action the Governor takes. A majority of citizens believed the Governor’s initial actions to have been appropriate. But as days turned into weeks, and weeks turned into months, this Governor’s unguided, often knee-jerk responses became widely criticized and largely ignored. Only when he sent agents from OSHA, the Gaming Control Board, and others, to “enforce” the Governor’s edict did people start complying – and then only marginally. And the Legislature took months to respond, and then only at the behest of the Governor.
Ours is a representative form of government where the government only retains the legitimacy and moral right to use its power with the consent of the governed. Whether it’s a Democrat or Republican in office, at no time should a governor, even in the face of an emergency, take total unilateral control over how people live and work for an indefinite period of time without the input of those who’s authority it truly is. The people, through their representatives, retain the ultimate political power, or else it is a dictatorship.
Solution:
The solution is simple and straightforward. The Legislature, acting on behalf of the people, is an inherently slow body to act (assuming the representatives are actually listening to their constituents). Emergencies are, by nature, developments that require swift action. NRS 414 has been interpreted by prior Attorneys General to mean the Governor can do whatever he wishes, whenever he wishes, however long as he wishes, to an unlimited degree. That is squarely contrary to the concept of a representative government. This bill will require any action taken by the Governor in an emergency be ratified and extended, if necessary, by the voice of the people through their representatives.
1. The issuance of an emergency by the Governor pursuant to NRS 414 automatically calls a special session of the Legislature for purposes of ratifying the actions of the governor.
2. At the special session, the Legislature must ratify the actions of the governor, and if they concur with the governor’s decision, may elect to extend the action taken and/or authorize the governor’s continued action. The Legislature may also require the governor take a different action if the people deem it appropriate to do.
For example, the Governor’s total shutdown of nearly all economic activity and even private social activity was rejected by a majority of citizens. There was wide-spread disregard for his directives as they dragged on. Yet the Governor persisted, sending his enforcers out to make sure people followed his directives. His directives seemed to change depending on what pictures he saw the day before, or the decisions he said were based on science changed in a matter of days, based on science. There was no input except by a select few (all political supporters of the Governor) and nowhere were the average citizens given a voice. The Legislature was all but silent until months after it all began.
This bill would not necessarily change that trajectory given the Governor has the undeviating devotion of the majority in the Legislature. But it is the Legislature that holds the proper authority to change laws properly enacted. Not the Governor. Thus, it is appropriate for the People of the State to speak through their elected representatives to give their consent to the Governor, consistent with our constitutional representative government.
SJR 2 (BDR C-83 - June 20, 2020): PROPOSES TO AMEND THE NEVADA CONSTITUTION TO REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL SELECTION.
This Joint Resolution proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to provide for subject matter experts to provide greater input in selecting candidates for gubernatorial appointment to a vacant judicial seat.
Problem:
Most legal cases in Nevada occur in front of a judge who has a specific type of “calendar.” These calendars are typically divided into five different basic categories: Criminal, Civil, Domestic (divorce, child custody, guardianships over minors, etc.), Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile Dependency (abuse and neglect), and Probate (including adult guardianships). Currently, there is no requirement for members of the commission to understand these areas or that the judicial candidates be chosen based on their understanding or experience in these areas, despite the fact that the judge will be deciding those types of cases. Indeed, non-lawyers have an oversized role in selecting judges, an area they, by definition, know little about.
Solution:
This Resolution would solve the problem in the following ways:
1. The commission required under the constitution would be reconfigured to include members of the profession who understand the details of that area of law and would know what skills a qualified judge would possess.
2. The commission would retain non-lawyers who could provide context and an outside perspective without creating a situation where their ignorance of the law means judges are chosen by non-legal criteria.
Currently, the Nevada Constitution requires non-lawyers and lawyers without practical experience decide who would be the best judge over a particular calendar. Section 20 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution provides that if a vacancy occurs before the expiration of a term of office in the Supreme Court, the court of appeals or a district court, the Governor is required to fill the vacancy from among three nominees selected for the vacancy by the Commission on Judicial Selection. Under this provision of the Nevada Constitution, nominations to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or court of appeals are required to be made by a permanent Commission composed of: (1) the Chief Justice or another justice of the Supreme Court designated by him or her; (2) three members of the State Bar of Nevada appointed by its Board of Governors; and (3) three persons appointed by the Governor who are not members of the legal profession. Nominations to fill a vacancy in a district court are required to be made by a temporary Commission composed of: (1) the members of the permanent Commission; (2) a member of the State Bar of Nevada who resides in the judicial district and is appointed by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Nevada; and (3) a resident of the judicial district appointed by the Governor who is not a member of the legal profession.
This resolution: (1) reduces from three to one the number of members of the permanent Commission appointed by the Governor who are not members of the legal profession; (2) requires each temporary Commission that is making nominations to fill a vacancy in a district court to consist of at least three but not more than five members of the State Bar of Nevada who are appointed by its Board of Governors, who reside in the judicial district and who practice law in the area of law of the division of the district court in which the vacancy occurs; (3) provides that an application to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court, the court of appeals or a district court, and the information contained in such an application, is confidential and not a public record.
By changing this provision of the Nevada Constitution, everyone benefits by having judges who are properly vetted by experts in the various fields of legal practice rather than non-experts and non-lawyers, resulting in more qualified judges on the bench.
SB 131 (BDR 100 - June 22, 2020): REVISES PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE OFFICE OF GRANT PROCUREMENT TO PROVIDE GREATER ACCESS TO FEDERAL GRANTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LEFT ON THE TABLE.
This bill proposes to revise provisions of statute governing the Office of Grant Procurement, Coordination and Management, including expanding the existing Office, expanding the duties of the Office with regard to all agencies of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government as well as private nonprofit organizations, establishing a compliance team to assist certain grant recipients, establishing an audit team to ensure that grant requirements are met, and establishing a government affairs team to ensure proper communication with the Governor, Legislature and Nevada Supreme Court.
Problem:
Nevada ranks at the bottom of states utilizing federal grants as supplements to state funding or where no funding is available from the state. Nevadans pay the same taxes to the federal government as other state’s citizens, but we get far less than others because we don’t ask for it. Billions of dollars are available from the federal government for the asking, but because we don’t have a robust grant procurement effort, most state agencies and other branches of government don’t know how to find them.
Solution:
This bill expands the Office of Grant Procurement, Coordination, and Management to provide sufficient staff and resources to state agencies and other branches of government to maximize capture of federal grant money. The bill also seeks to provide similar help to non-profit organizations that lessen the state’s burdens in helping our vulnerable citizens.
In early 2020, I discussed expanding the office with Senator David Parks (one of the principal legislative leaders behind the creation of the Grants Office) so that the Office could help all state agencies and other branches obtain as much federal money as is available to us. Right now, we capture a tiny fraction of what we are eligible to obtain, and the amount of money this office would be able to help secure would more than pay for the office. The multiplier effect other states have seen exceed 6 times or more. This is a no-brainer.
SB 131 expands the Office of Grant Procurement, Coordination, and Management by expanding the role and duties of the office. Specifically, the bill requires the creation of four teams within the office: (1) the Grant Procurement Team; (2) the Compliance Team; (3) the Audit Team, and (4) the Communications Team. Each team is responsible for different aspects of the work, but of course, there will be significant cross communication and training so that the Office will act as an organized body responsible to increase the amount of federal funds obtained for use in Nevada.
The Grant Procurement Team is responsible for the following tasks:
(a) Research and identify governmental and nongovernmental grants which are available in this State;
(b) Create a template for grant proposals;
(c) Develop tutorials and other instructional materials relating to grant procurement, coordination and management; and
(d) To the greatest extent practicable, prepare an application and proposal for a grant upon the request of an agency.
The Compliance Team is directed to:
(a) Advise an agency concerning the requirements for receiving and managing grants to maximize the amount of grant money received by the agency and ensure that the purpose of any grant received by the agency is implemented and expenditures of the grant money are tracked properly; and
(b) Annually prepare and submit to each agency a written report regarding whether each grant received by the agency during the immediately preceding calendar year was implemented and tracked properly and, if not, any remedial steps that must be taken by the agency to ensure continued funding.
The Audit Team is tasked to:
(a) Work with an agency to ensure that, for each grant awarded, the agency: (1)Receives the correct amount of money; (2) Expends that money in accordance with any requirements of the grant; and (3) Maintains accurate records of all transactions relating to the expenditure of that money; and
(b) Assist the compliance team with preparing any report they are required to produce.
The Communications Team is responsible to:
(a) Serve as a clearinghouse for disseminating information to agencies relating to the application for, receipt of and use of grants in this State;
(b) Compile and periodically update a list of the information received by the Office pursuant to NRS 232.225;
(c) To the greatest extent practicable, ensure that agencies are aware of any grant opportunities for which they are or may be eligible;
(d) To the greatest extent practicable, coordinate with agencies that have received grants for similar projects to ensure that the efforts and services of those agencies are not duplicated;
(e) Communicate regularly with the Budget Division of the Office of Finance, the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the fiscal staff of the Judicial Branch of State Government regarding the activities of the Office;
(f) To the greatest extent practicable, coordinate with members of Congress representing this State to combine efforts relating to identifying and managing available federal grants and related programs;
(g) Identify grants for which agencies were eligible but did not apply and, to the greatest extent practicable, communicate with such agencies concerning those grants;
(h) Using the information received by the Office pursuant to NRS 232.225, make recommendations to agencies regarding how to increase the likelihood that the agency receives any grant for which the agency applied and did not receive in the future; and
(i) Assist in the preparation of the report required by NRS 232.224.
Together, the teams will work to maximize the amount of federal grant money and assure that the Nevada agencies are maximizing their utilization of the money received. The reporting function, both internal and external, will assure Nevada is receiving the benefits available at minimal expense, thereby removing these burdens from the shoulders of our hard-working Nevadans.
SB 351 (BDR 58-555 - July 18, 2020): REVISES PROVISIONS RELATING TO RENEWABLE ENERGY, INCLUDING ESTABLISHING A UTILITY CHARGE ON THE TRANSFER OF RENEWABLE ENERGY WITH THE REVENUE TO BE USED FOR EDUCATION TO OFFSET RECENT REDUCTIONS IN EDUCATION FUNDING.
Nevada is the hub of “wheeling” or transmission of power from many different sources for use in California. Most of the energy generated in Nevada comes from renewable resources, including Hoover Dam, solar farms, and geothermal plants across the state, but most of that energy goes to California. Nevadans are responsible for maintaining these transmission lines and sources, and we are increasing the amount of renewable generation every day.
Problem:
Little of the energy we send to California is fully paid for by Californians. This bill proposes to capture the value of energy generated and transmitted across the state for other states’ use. Though they pay for the energy on the open market, they don’t pay Nevada to bring it to them. This would be like a grocer not getting paid to stock the food for you to buy and only sending money to the manufacturer for the food itself. Nevadan’s deserve better.
Solution:
This bill seeks to add a transmission charge to help pay for our services, which is estimated to generate more than $600 Million each year. This bill add very little to Nevada ratepayers, but other users will pay the bulk of the bill. This is about wheeling power across Nevada, from Nevada and by Nevadans for use by others, for which Nevadans are entitled to compensation. This bill is about fairness in the energy market. And given we are best suited with the land, sunlight, and bi-partisan political will, this should be a priority as we try to pull our budget out of the abyss.
Specifically, the bill will do the following:
1) Encourage growth of renewable energy production in Nevada so as to help California meet its portfolio standard goals;
2) Create Jobs in Nevada in building up solar fields;
3) Using our land, where the sun always shines, to generate revenue in participating in the cost of energy shared to other entities, such as California power companies;
4) Use the proceeds thus generated to help fund our educational commitments;
5) Incentivize monetarily local governmental entities to allocate appropriate land areas for renewable energy production to help their budgets;
6) Take advantage of the only viable transmission system from Arizona and Nevada to Southern California.
7) Anticipate 1.5 cents/KWH assessment from the end user power company in California to the State of Nevada. (Rough estimate: this could be $600 Million/year to the State of Nevada)
8) In conjunction with BDR 115 which will require the PUC to identify the sources of renewable energy, the amount of power produced, and where the power is distributed locally or far away and how much power is returned to Nevada power companies that can be counted as renewable and otherwise.
9) Spare the political anxieties and challenges of NIMBY that block the realistic creation of renewable energy production sites in California.
10) Generate more renewable electricity in an ever growing dependency on electricity for cars, gadgets, transportation, lights, and communication.
With this approach, Nevadans will see the fruits of their labor. And I thank Senator Joe Hardy for coming up with the idea for this bill some 10 years ago. Hopefully this year will see success in passing the bill.
SB 374 (BDR 32-161 - July 29, 2020): REVISES PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT TAX TO BENEFIT EDUCATION.
This bill takes on a topic most politicians fear: the Live Entertainment Tax. Special interests in Live Entertainment are among the best funded, most politically powerful special interests in the United States. From professional sports leagues, to individual teams, to international shows, this special interest group has received special treatment above most others – and they are in the financial position of being best able to afford to contribute to our state, and specifically to education.
Problem:
Besides the obvious equal treatment question where large events that generate hundreds of millions or billions in revenue versus small events that don’t, only the hosts of small events are required to pay a tax on ticket sales. Professional boxing and football, for example, are exempted from the tax despite the millions of dollars raised. Originally justified as a means of enticing them here, instead, we give them a pass on paying their fare share, and then give one, for example, $750 Million in public money raised for a new facility.
Solution:
This bill captures tens-of-millions in untaxed revenues, from both the events and the secondary ticket markets. It expands the Live Entertainment Tax to include professional sporting events and secondary ticket markets (which pay no tax at all), and directs all money collected to go to K-12 teacher salaries in addition to DSA/Education Funs appropriation. (The bill will include language that prevents the kind of displaced or “supplanted” appropriations we saw last session after including the “mariuana tax money”, and it includes accountability measures to make sure that it is paid to teachers who demonstrate student growth.
Professional sports teams have promised to help education. More than putting on a summer camp or a small check here or there, Nevada should expect these organizations to pay the same taxes everyone else pays. To pay less is to fail to pay their fair share.
SB 331 (BDR S-162 - JULY 29, 2020): RESTORES COMPENSATION FOR NEVADA HIGHWAY PATROL TROOPERS AND SUPPORT STAFF.
This bill seeks to restore compensation and seniority for NHP Troopers who lost that in 2008.
Problem:
Nevada saw significant budget cuts after the economic collapse of 2007-2008, and no government agency was spared wage and hiring freezes and furloughs. Nevada Highway Patrol was no exception. But unlike almost every other law enforcement agency, NHP did not see their compensation restored as budgets recovered. And though personal morale remains high at NHP, the fact that their compensation remains suppressed as compared to other agencies make them a prime target for poaching. Once the Troopers are trained and the best are identified, other agencies swoop in to pick them up. This is inherently unfair to the NHP as a whole.
Solution:
These Troopers are our first line of defense against drug and human trafficking. They deserve to be made whole. This bill restores the Troopers’ pay so that they can be compensated at the same rate as the other law enforcement agencies. It would also restore seniority status to those that had theirs frozen. Right now, because pay is tied to longevity and seniority, we have supervisors and senior troopers compensated at similar or lower rates than some of those they supervise. This bill will solve that inequity.
SB 119 (BDR 11-163 - July 29, 2020): REVISES PROVISIONS RELATING TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CREATING PROCEDURES THAT INCREASE ACCESS TO SPEEDY, EFFICIENT, AND INEXPENSIVE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES, AND PROVIDING FOR CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES TO EXISTING LAW.
Right now, more than 80 percent of divorces (including those with and without children) are handled by the parties without lawyers. Nevada provides for “summary procedures” (expedited processes) for divorce. This allows couples without children who wish to terminate their marriage to do so without a fight. But the same is not true for those that have children, forcing them to fight it out through an adversarial process. This only increases the cost to both the parents and the state, and it sets children up for failure as it initially sets up both parents to start in a fighting stance.
Problem:
Nevada courts have the long-standing policy of allowing people to settle their disputes by agreement. In the case of family law, they provide the ability for married couples to simply enter into an agreement, called a joint petition, laying out their agreement that is adopted by the court. But this process is unavailable to the resolution of child custody, child support, and causes the parties to have to duke it out in court or hire lawyers to help them work around the fight. It also sets up the family to spend more money, even if they hire a lawyer to help them through an otherwise agreed-upon solution. That’s unnecessarily expensive and time consuming.
There are also a number of things that need to be cleaned up in the existing statutory language:
· A couple that files for a “legal separation” must start over and file for divorce if that separation doesn’t result in reconciliation and one of the parties wishes to remarry;
· The factors that a court must consider when determining the custody of a child are silent as to whether parents have already established an agreement concerning the division of responsibilities after separation;
· The factors that a court must consider when determining the custody of a child are silent as to whether a parent is seeking custody primarily to avoid the payment of child support;
· A military couple with children who are divorcing or are already divorced and the military member spouse is being reassigned to a new duty station, that military member spouse is automatically assessed all of the transportation costs for the children, despite the fact that the couple knew going in that relocations were an inevitable part of being in the military. This is inherently unfair to the military member spouse.
· The law references “sole physical custody” when there is no definition for “sole” but only “primary” or “joint” physical custody. This confusion leads to odd and disparate results.
· A parent who has been given permission to relocate with the children must seek judicial authorization when they wish to move out of Nevada. Recent case law suggests this must happen each time they move, even if they’ve already obtained permission to move out of Nevada. This bill provides that if a subsequent move will not substantially affect the non-custodial parent’s visitation and contact with the children, the moving parent need not apply to the court for permission after notice to the other parent if the other parent does not object. If the other parent objects, the other parent must prove the move will hamper their continued relationship with their children.
· Parties who enter a contested divorce may ask for temporary maintenance from the other spouse, and the court may award temporary maintenance with little consideration of the facts as they exist at the time.
Solution:
These are simple changes that substantially improve inexpensive and efficient access to the courts to couples that agree on how their divorce, custody, and related cases are handled. It corrects language that unfairly punishes parents who are active military who are reassigned to a new location, and it cleans up other provisions that make little sense given the structure of the statutes. Specifically, the bill provides the following:
· A couple that files for a “legal separation” may simply file a petition to convert it to a divorce if that separation specifies that all other steps for divorce were taken at the time of separation, such as separation of the parties’ financial accounts, child custody and support was determined, and all steps except for termination of the legal marriage were previously accomplished;
· The factors that a court must consider when determining the custody of a child will consider whether parents have already established an agreement concerning the division of responsibilities after separation;
· The factors that a court must consider when determining the custody of a child will consider whether a parent is seeking custody primarily to avoid the payment of child support;
· A military member spouse will no longer be automatically assessed all of the transportation costs for the children, based upon the fact that the couple knew going in that relocations were an inevitable part of being in the military.
· The references “sole physical custody” will be changed to “primary” physical custody, and the court is then charged with establishing the proper amount of visitation. In instances where visitation is supervised or left up to the custodial parent, the order will say so. This bill cleans up those provisions.
· A parent who has been given permission to relocate with the children must seek judicial authorization each time they move. This bill provides that if a move will not substantially affect the non-custodial parent’s visitation and contact with the children, the moving parent need not apply to the court for permission after notice to the other parent and the other parent does not object.
· Parties who enter a contested divorce may ask for temporary maintenance from the other spouse, and the court may award temporary maintenance with little consideration of the facts as they exist at the time.
SB 225 (BDR 24-550 - November 28, 2020): RESTORES VOTER CONFIDENCE BY ELIMINATING VOTING DISCREPANCIES THE RESULT OF AB4 (2020) THROUGH IMPROVED VOTER VERIFICATION AND THE ABILITY TO PROPERLY AUDIT THE BALLOTS.
In the summer of 2020, well-meaning legislators proposed and approved AB4 as a means of making sure those that were shut-in due to the COVID-19 pandemic had access to voting through a mail-in ballot system. Unfortunately, AB4 was not well thought through or executed, and even the Registrar of Voters in Clark County (the site of thousands of “ballot discrepancies”) said there were so many discrepancies that one election should be redone. This destroyed the already-low confidence of voters in the election process.
The process of democratically electing our representatives is one of the most fundamental elements of our republican form of government. By undermining confidence, we sow division amongst large swaths of our constituents. No one party stays in power for long in a free and open election system. Voter confidence is paramount in assuring we remain focused on the constituents’ needs and views. As 2020 demonstrated, we need more effort in unifying our people than what we’ve done in the past. A lack of transparency in the current system, and the inability to actually verify or audit the process made it impossible for nearly half of our country to believe in the outcome. This has got to be addressed.
This bill seeks to repeal AB 4 and return to a normal in-person voting system with the ability for voters to request mail-in absentee ballots. It establishes a simple two-part personal authentication system that, like financial transactions, merely assures that the person voting is who they say they are without burdening their ability to vote at all, and it also provides for auditing the ballots so that we know that a person voted without sacrificing the privacy of the votes.
After watching elections where more people voted than are registered to vote in the given district, it is time we spent some effort in assuring the security and accuracy of the vote. Failing to do so only disenfranchises those who properly voted.
SB 343 (BDR 34-551 - November 28, 2020): PROVIDES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ADDRESS CLASS OVERCROWDING QUICKLY THOUGH ALTERNATIVE SITES.
This bill proposes to authorize school districts to enter into leases of space from private developers to provide instructional space to reduce class sizes; provides conditions and limitations on such leases; authorizes school districts to enter into contracts relating to necessary tenant improvements under such leases; and diverts all tax receipts from the wholesale and retail tax on marijuana to an account dedicated to such capital improvements.
Problem:
The Number 1 complaint of teachers in our school districts is not about low pay, but about the impossible conditions brought on by overcrowded classrooms. Teachers cannot effectively teach 35 to 40 students every semester. They simply can’t spend enough time with that many students. And yet the one thing that nobody is really talking about is that class sizes are the result of not enough classroom space in our existing schools. And what teacher recruiters are telling us is that even if we offer more money, too many teachers refuse to come to Nevada because of the impossible conditions. This can only be solved with more classroom space. And under our current paradigm of district-built and district-owned buildings that take years to build, there is no way to solve this problem in the short term.
Solution:
The solution to fix this problem is to rely on what the Nevada Supreme Court did just a few years ago: to lease its building from a private developer. Imagine if schools could grow or shrink based solely upon demand – that as a school population grew, all it needed to do was to add classrooms as needed. This is exactly what this bill will do. Of course, limitations and guarantees will need to be added to the leases to protect against gouging or unexpected rate increases. Because school districts are funded on a biennial basis and need as much stability in their budgeting practices as possible, the leases will be geared to accommodate the districts’ needs. But this paradigm shift provides a reasonable and fairly rapid response to our unmet educational need, and it will cost less money to do it. At the end of the need (or at the end of the buildings’ functional life), the building is returned to its owner and the district need not spend millions upgrading and maintaining it.
SB 133 (BDR 38-552 - November 28, 2020): REQUIRES DWSS TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT IN JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY FAIR.
In 2017, I proposed AB 278, legislation that was enacted that shifted the burden of updating and modernizing our antiquated child support calculations through a special committee formed to do so under the auspices of the Division of Welfare and Social Services (DWSS). In the year that followed, that committee reviewed and modernized the child support guidelines to better address the needs of children.
Problem:
One of the things that was not changed, however, was what to do in cases where parents have joint physical custody (also known as shared or equal custody) but one parent earns more than the other. Under then-current law, the person who, after calculating the financial obligation of both parents, had a larger obligation, paid the entire difference to the other. Rather than equalizing the result, this rule meant that one parent paid substantially more than the other even after the adjustment.
Solution:
The answer is simple: DWSS, through the Child Support Review Committee, should revise the adjustment calculation to equalize the result. This means that rather than paying the full difference in the calculated support, the parent with the larger obligation pays half of the difference to the other parent, thereby equalizing the calculated obligation of the other. The argument can be made that by paying the full difference, this places a greater burden on the parent who earns more than the other. But the guidelines also provide for the Court to make further adjustments when the circumstances warrant it. This bill simply equalizes the starting point and makes it fair to both parties.
SB 132 (BDR 553 - November 28, 2020): MAKES AN APPROPRIATION OF $10 MILLION TO EXPAND JUVENILE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE HARBOR INTO ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION OF 700,000 OR MORE.
The school-to-prison pipeline is a term too often used in public speeches – not because it doesn’t exist, but because it still exists despite our knowing how to address the problem. There is plenty of social science that tells us that children caught in the juvenile justice system remain in the system into adulthood largely because they lack the supports at home that they need to succeed. Whether it be because of systemic racism, poverty, lack of mentoring, a lack of proper educational support, or even emotional or mental health issues, the fact remains that if we can wrap that child with services when they are young and get them on the right track, they are substantially more likely to stay out of the system thereafter and have real opportunities to succeed. Nevada stands to save tens-of-millions of dollars by keeping these children from “graduating” into the adult justice system.
In 2016, a collaborative effort of juvenile justice and county family and mental health experts joined to establish The Harbor Juvenile Assessment Center. Since then, thousands of at-risk youth and those that had their first contact with the juvenile justice system have been helped to see a different path. But the supply of services available it tiny compared to the need. Every school has students that can benefit from what the Harbor offers, but because there is only one site to visit, it is hard or impossible for most students to obtain what they need.
This bill seeks to add a continuing appropriation to expand services of The Harbor into the schools. In a 2018 collaborative effort between the Clark County Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS) team and the Clark County School District, it was determined that a $10 Million investment each year would allow the district to provide the space and for DJJS to provide the personnel to put the Harbor in every school. This investment will see substantial positive returns by greatly reducing the school-to-prison pipeline and increased economic activity of those that were helped. If we care about our at-risk children, this is a small investment in their future.
SB 330 (BDR 34-554 - November 28, 2020): ENACTS THE TRANSPARENCY IN EDUCATION SPENDING ACT.
This bill seeks to require the board of trustees of each school district to report to the Department of Education an explanation of expenditures, require such a report to be drafted using plain language that is understandable by the general public and posted on certain Internet websites, require the board of trustees of a school district to base the budget on the total amount of money available per pupil in the current biennium, and require the system of accounting for public schools to be based on generally accepted accounting principles.
Problem:
For too long our budget process for funding schools has been complex and opaque. School districts use more acronyms for their programs than just about any other industry, and without a glossary or a lot of experience in education circles, it’s almost impossible to understand what we’re buying. The average person has no clue how the billions of dollars are spent in Nevada’s K-12 schools. Even the majority of legislators have no clue what they are funding since no one, even those that drafted the 2019 Education Funding Formula can tell you what all they are spending the money on. This is not the way to run an education system.
Solution:
School budgets are simple math: addition of each component part totals up to a big number. This bill requires the school districts to be transparent about how they spend our money. It requires them to use plain language in explaining each component part, and it requires that they put their budgets on the internet for anyone to view. It also requires that the district correlate the legislative appropriation – made on a per-pupil basis – with what they spent. Just like any business or family has to balance their budget knowing what’s in it, the districts should be required to explain how they are using the money they receive from their taxpayers. This bill requires they do just that.
SB 206 (BDR 57-556 - November 28, 2020): Revises state law to adopt the “Birthday Rule” in a manner similar to other states to allow seniors to change their Medicare supplemental insurance plan within a 30-day window beginning on their birthday without medical underwriting.
Though Medicare – the federal program that provides for coverage of medical expenses to seniors – is a federal program, eligibility to change supplemental insurance plans rests with the states to decide. Many states, such as Nevada, allow for entry only, and even if that plan premium changes over time (as they all do), that Nevadan is stuck in that plan for life. Many other states have adjusted their rules to allow for those seniors whose plan has changed to move to a better plan, with the “window” occurring each birthday. This bill seeks to establish that “birthday rule” for all Nevada seniors, saving them thousands of dollars each year.
SB 339 (BDR 10-557 - November 28, 2020): AUTHORIZES A HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION (HOA) TO LEASE AN ABANDONED HOME UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Problem:
In 2008, the housing industry collapsed and the broader economy went off the cliff. Housing values plummeted, meaning everyone who had a mortgage for more than half of the value of their home found themselves underwater (meaning the house was worth less than what they owed). And though the government stepped in to make the blow softer for those who lost their jobs and who then faced foreclosure and eviction, a huge number of homes were simply abandoned. This left a blight on the neighborhoods that still exists today. Thousands of homes site vacant, some boarded up, some occupied by squatters or others, endangering the safety and value of the entire neighborhood. The banks are not always motivated to foreclose since that hurts their bottom lines, and the homeowner has no interest in maintaining the home since they abandoned it years before. And Homeowners Associations (HOAs) were left holding the bag of unpaid assessments, meaning the entire neighborhood suffered from more than just an unsightly property.
Currently, the HOA has what is called a “super-priority lien” on unpaid assessments. This means that when a property is sold, the buyer must pay the HOA for all of its outstanding unpaid assessments before anyone else gets paid, even the bank holding the mortgage. But they have to wait until a bank decides to foreclose and sell the property. This provides a perverse incentive for the bank – it’s often cheaper to let the vacant home sit and rot than it is to pay the HOA.
Solution:
This bill seeks to authorize the HOA to do more than sit and wait. With proper notice to the applicable bank and an opportunity for the Bank to respond, once the HOA provides notice to the bank of the HOA's intent to lease the abandoned home, the bank the first right of refusal to step in and foreclose or the HOA can pay to fix up the abandoned home and rent it out. The HOA gets it’s costs for rehabilitation first, then it’s outstanding assessments, then the bank gets the rest.
This is a win-win-win for everyone. The HOA gets its unpaid assessments, the neighborhood gets to remove the blight, the bank gets its mortgage paid down, and even the homeowner who abandoned the property benefits in the small reduction in what they owe. There is no legitimate downside to doing this.
SB 207 (BDR S-876 - December 3, 2020): EXPANDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH TRADES READINESS, JOBS READINESS AND APPRENTICESHIP PATHWAYS FOR THOSE WHO ELECT TO ENTER A TRADE RATHER THAN SEEK A FORMAL COLLEGE DEGREE.
Problem:
Nevada suffers from having to rely on tourism and gaming as our primary generators of revenue and jobs, and the state has struggled to entice business to relocate here. We’ve spent millions of dollars in financial incentives and have landed a few major businesses with those incentives. Most of the incentives have gone to businesses already here in Nevada since we don’t (and shouldn’t) write legislation that benefits only a select few people. And in this process, we’ve discovered that the main reason businesses don’t come to Nevada isn’t financial (we already have one of the most business-friendly set of financial incentives in place), but it’s the lack of a skilled workforce.
There are many types of jobs that can be done without a college degree, but which require significant technical training. Some of that training can be learned on the job, but most of the initial training must be undertaken by the job applicant first. Currently, the only “apprenticeship” training available in Nevada occurs in the construction trades, such as electrical, plumbing, pipefitting, steelworking, and other industries. But there are many others that have no such apprenticeship program, such as the emerging and growth sectors of advanced manufacturing, health care, information technology, logistics and operations, and mining.
Solution:
Nevada’s System of Higher Education (NSHE) already has the know-how to provide job readiness through apprenticeship training. All they need is the authorization and resources to do so. This bill gives them the authorization and resources they need. The multiplier effect is huge: if we can provide the skilled workforce that businesses need, they are far more likely to relocate here. Tesla is a perfect example. They sought to leave California due to the oppressive government overreach and expense, but Nevada failed to win their favor over Texas, who had both the financial incentives and the skilled workforce. This bill would empower our own citizens to entice those companies here, to employ them in skilled jobs that pay better wages, and then they in turn contribute more to the success (and revenue) of our state. This is a no-brainer.
SB 375 (BDR 34-951 - December 3, 2020): PROVIDES FOR A $1 BILLION DOLLAR APPROPRIATION TO THE DISTRIBUTIVE SCHOOL ACCOUNT, EDUCATION FUNDING ACCOUNT, OR ITS SUCCESSOR, OVER AND ABOVE THE BASE FUNDING PROVIDED IN THE FIRST APPROPRIATION BILL, AND DIRECTS THAT THE MONEY GO TO TEACHER PAY AND CLASS SIZE REDUCTION.
In my view, there are two priorities of paramount value: public safety and education. First, if we are not safe, nothing else really matters. Schools can’t operate when children’s safety is at stake. But education is the real answer to the rest of our social ills. Education is the way out and the way up for every child in Nevada. There is simply no other priority that exceeds that of education. Even health care is secondary, for though a child is physically cared for, if they are not educated, they live in poverty and the reality that their health will always be compromised.
Current law requires the Legislature to fund the Distributive School Account (DSA), the account that funds all K-12 education in the state, prior to any other appropriation in the budget process. In 2019, the Legislature created a new Education Funding account, which is expected to replace the DSA.
In the runup to the 2019 legislative session, we also saw significant confusion after the citizens of Nevada passed Question 2, a constitutional amendment in 2016 that legalized recreational use of marijuana based in part on the promise that the taxes generated from the sale would “go to schools.” What the organizers and proponents of the question either didn’t understand or kept to themselves was that there was no provision in the measure that would require that these funds did not “supplant” or otherwise displace the funds from other sources that were typically placed in the DSA. In other words, the requirement that the money “go to schools” could be met without increasing the overall amount of money sent to schools. It was clearly viewed as a bait-and-switch.
Though there is plenty of money to funds schools properly, the majority in the Legislature and the person in the governor’s office have simply lacked the political will to make it happen. Instead of seeking to education children, they have decided to award some of that money to the politically powerful interest groups that clamor for money. This is true of leaders of both parties over the past 30 years.
This bill seeks to put an end to that practice. This bill offers the Legislature and the Governor to put their money where their mouths are: to fund education first, then figure out how to prioritize and fund the rest. The bill seeks to place another $1 Billion in school coffers, though tied to teacher pay with accountability and for real class size reduction. It’s time to put our children’s futures ahead of our own.
SB 252 (BDR 54-961 - February 8, 2021): EXTENDS THE PERIOD DURING WICH THE STATE CONTRACTORS BOARD MUST ENFORCE CONTRACTORS’ PROMISES.
Most contractors are more afraid of the Nevada State Contractors Board (NSCB) than they are of a lawsuit by a disgruntled customer. The courts might make them pay a little money, but the NSCB could put them out of business if they step out of line. The entire mission of the NSCB is to assure that Nevadan’s are protected from unscrupulous contractors. But NSCB seems to think that’s just for the first four years.
Problem:
Currently, NSCB will only require contractors to honor a warranty for four years, other than for longer warranties for the structure of a home required in statute. But if a contractor offers a longer warranty in order to convince a customer to hire them, then they refuse to honor it, the NSCB will do nothing about it, even if the contract the contractor signed is clear.
Solution:
This bill seeks to fix that problem in a very simple way: if the contractor offers a long warranty that results in a contract, they are required to meet the requirements of the contract for the entirety of the term of that contract.
For example, if a pool solar heating contractor offers an 11 year warranty on parts and labor as a means of convincing a homeowner to buy their system, then after four years of constant problems, the contractor stops honoring their warranty, the NSCB tells the homeowner “too bad - take them to court.” Then, when the court finds that the NSCB did nothing about it, the court often doesn’t take action either. The homeowner loses, even if the warranty was clear. It should cost almost nothing for the NSCB to add this small requirement, and the homeowners who suffer are entitled to have their contracts enforced.
SB 264 (BDR 43-962 - February 8, 2021): PROHIBITS SEMI TRUCKS FROM OCCUPYING THE FAR-LEFT LANE ON MULTI-LANE HIGHWAYS.
Anyone that regularly travels the highway has seen the problem: semi-trucks in all travel lanes, holding up traffic. I agree with the truckers that they should be allowed to pass slower vehicles, but they should share the road, not exercise dominion over them.
Problem:
Semi trucks travel at necessarily slower speeds than ordinary passenger cars. This is largely for safety reasons since they take so much longer distances to stop. Traffic laws protect these trucks from drivers that would cut them off or enter their lane too closely. But all too often, the slower-moving trucks give motorists no choice because they simply will not yield to faster traffic. I have seen too many instances of near head-on collisions or near-wipeouts because faster cars seek to pass the slower trucks in places they shouldn’t. These risks are utterly unnecessary if one lane is reserved for the faster traffic.
Solution:
Many states, if not most, require semi trucks to yield to faster traffic, including by staying out of the far-left lane. Of course, most highways in rural Nevada are just two-lane affairs - one lane in each direction. When a faster car comes up on a semi truck, they necessarily wait until a passing lane comes up, whether that be a break in the double-yellow line in the center, or a dedicated passing lane. That’s expected. But where there are two or more lanes, trucks should not occupy both lanes forcing faster vehicles to stack up behind them. When this happens, inevitably, someone in a hurry decides to jump out and try to pass. This can result in a fatal head-on collision.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve travelled along I-15 in the Las Vegas valley to find semi trucks in all lanes of travel (other than the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes), forcing large numbers of passenger vehicles to stack up behind them. And I regularly get calls from constituents complaining about it.
What is scary, however, is that frustrated drivers will often jump into the HOV lanes outside the ordinary merge areas which can endanger those already in the HOV lanes. Or, on the way up to Mesquite, there are several hills where triple-trailer rigs are being passed by other semi trucks that, though faster than the triple trailer, are still substantially slower than the passenger cars flying up behind them. The frustrated passenger car drivers then cross the double-yellow line to pass. It’s insane.
If the faster truck can pass the other without holding up traffic, they should be allowed to do so. But if they can’t, they should yield to the faster traffic and wait until they get to a truck lane or a sufficient opening in traffic occurs. This bill accomplishes just that.
This bill should have negligible impact on truck travel. Truckers complain that slowing them down will cause substantial increases in commodity pricing because it will take longer to get those items to market. But the data from states that require trucks to yield to faster traffic debunk that claim. This bill is about public safety. Let’s all share the road, but let’s not impede everything or endanger others in doing so.