Antitrust Act, medical aid in dying, study of water use fees among bills that failed to advance
(Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)
The Nevada State Legislature's latest deadline brought an unsurprising end to a 'medical aid in dying' bill Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo had promised to veto. The bill was one of 31 declared dead Friday.
Similar to a bill vetoed by the governor two years ago, Assembly Bill 346 would have legalized the prescribing, dispensing and administering of medication designed to end the life of terminally ill patients. Lombardo in 2023 became the first governor to veto such legislation, and a day after AB346 was heard by a legislative committee last month vowed to veto it again.
Despite Lombardo's position, the legislation did continue to move through the Legislature. The full Assembly voted on it, where it passed 23-19. The vote did not fall on party lines. It was referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services but never received a committee hearing.
Other notable bills that died Friday:
Senate Bill 143 (State Sen. Rochelle Nguyen, D) would have authorized the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources to evaluate and review the excessive use fees and other water conservation efforts that impact turf and tree canopy. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and was heard by Assembly Natural Resources on May 5. But it was never given a committee vote.
Senate Bill 218 (State Sen. James Ohrenschall, D) would have adopted the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act, requiring companies to submit to the state attorney general the same notices and information they are already required to provide federal agencies prior to mergers or acquisitions. The bill passed the Senate on party lines, with the 13 Democrats in support and the eight Republicans in opposition. It was referred to the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor but never given a hearing.
Assembly Bill 119 (Assemblymember Steve Yeager, D) sought to crack down on paramilitary organizing and activities. It passed the Assembly on party lines, with the 27 Democrats in support and the 15 Republicans in opposition. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs but never given a hearing.
Assembly Bill 291 (Assemblymember Jovan Jackson, D) would have made changes to the record sealing process for people with multiple past convictions. The bill passed the full Assembly on party lines. It was given a Senate Judiciary hearing in late April but never given a committee vote.
Assembly Bill 437 (Assemblymember Jill Dickman, R) would have established a Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plan, an 'insurance of last resort' for properties unable to find coverage elsewhere. The bill's death was tied to an April 23 deadline, but missed the Current's publication time, so we're mentioning it here. The bill made it to the floor of the Assembly but languished on the Chief Clerk's desk and was never given a floor vote.
The complete list of dead bills by deadline is available on the Nevada State Legislature's website.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
As a generation of gay and lesbian people ages, memories of worse — and better — times swirl
WASHINGTON (AP) — David Perry recalls being young and gay in 1980s Washington D.C. and having 'an absolute blast.' He was fresh out of college, raised in Richmond, Virginia, and had long viewed the nation's capital as 'the big city' where he could finally embrace his true self. He came out of the closet here, got a job at the National Endowment for the Arts where his boss was a gay Republican, and 'lost my virginity in D.C. on August 27, 1980,' he says, chuckling. The bars and clubs were packed with gay men and women — Republican and Democrat — and almost all of them deep in the closet. 'There were a lot of gay men in D.C., and they all seemed to work for the White House or members of Congress. It was kind of a joke. This was pre-Internet, pre-Facebook, pre-all of that. So people could be kind of on the down-low. You would run into congresspeople at the bar,' Perry says. 'The closet was pretty transparent. It's just that no one talked about it.' He also remembers a billboard near the Dupont Circle Metro station with a counter ticking off the total number of of AIDS deaths in the District of Columbia. 'I remember when the number was three,' says Perry, 63. Now Perry, a public relations professional in San Francisco, is part of a generation that can find itself overshadowed amidst the after-parties and DJ sets of World Pride, which wraps up this weekend with a two-day block party on Pennsylvania Avenue. Advocates warn of a quiet crisis among retirement-age LGBTQ+ people and a community at risk of becoming marginalized inside their own community. 'It's really easy for Pride to be about young people and parties,' says Sophie Fisher, LGBTQ program coordinator for Seabury Resources for Aging, a company that runs queer-friendly retirement homes and assisted-living facilities and which organized a pair of Silver Pride events last month for LGBTQ+ people over age 55. These were 'the first people through the wall' in the battle for gay rights and protections, Fisher says. Now, 'they kind of get swept under the rug.' Loneliness and isolation The challenges and obstacles for elderly LGBTQ+ people can be daunting. 'We're a society that really values youth as is. When you throw in LGBTQ on top of that, it's a double whammy,' says Christina Da Costa of the group SAGE — Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders. 'When you combine so many factors, you have a population that's a lot less likely to thrive than their younger brethren.' Older LGBTQ+ people are far more likely to have no contact with their family and less likely to have children to help care for them, Da Costa says. Gay men over 60 are the precise generation that saw their peer group decimated by AIDS. The result: chronic loneliness and isolation. 'As you age, it becomes difficult to find your peer group because you don't go out to bars anymore,' says Yvonne Smith, a 73-year-old D.C. resident who moved to Washington at age 14. 'There are people isolated and alone out there.' These seniors are also often poorer than their younger brethren. Many were kicked out of the house the moment they came out of the closet, and being openly queer or nonbinary could make you unemployable or vulnerable to firing deep into the 1990s. 'You didn't want to be coming out of a gay bar, see one of your co-workers or one of your students,' Smith says. 'People were afraid that if it was known you were gay, they would lose their security clearance or not be hired at all.' In April, founders cut the ribbon on Mary's House, a new 15-unit living facility for LGBTQ+ seniors in southeast Washington. These kind of inclusive senior-care centers are becoming an increasing priority for LGBTQ+ elders. Rayceen Pendarvis, a D.C. queer icon, performer and presenter, says older community members who enter retirement homes or assisted-living centers can face social isolation or hostility from judgmental residents. 'As we age, we lose our peers. We lose our loved ones and some of us no longer have the ability to maintain our homes,' says Pendarvis, who identifies as 'two-spirit' and eschews all pronouns. 'Sometimes they go in, and they go back into the closet. It's very painful for some.' A generation gap Perry and others see a clear divide between their generation and the younger LGBTQ+ crowd. Younger people, Perry says, drink and smoke a lot less and do much less bar-hopping in the dating-app age. Others can't help but gripe a bit about how these youngsters don't know how good they have it. 'They take all these protections for granted,' Smith says. The younger generation 'got comfortable,' Pendarvis says, and sometimes doesn't fully understand the multigenerational fight that came before. 'We had to fight to get the rights that we have today,' Pendarvis said. 'We fought for a place at the table. We CREATED the table!' Now that fight is on again as President Donald Trump's administration sets the community on edge with an open culture war targeting trans protections and drag shows, and enforcing a binary view of gender identity. The struggle against that campaign may be complicated by a quiet reality inside the LGBTQ+ community: These issues remain a topic of controversy among some LGBTQ+ seniors. Perry said he has observed that some older lesbians remain leery of trans women; likewise, he said, some older gay men are leery of the drag-queen phenomenon. 'There is a good deal of generational sensitivity that needs to be practiced by our older gay brethren,' he says. 'The gender fluidity that has come about in the last 15 years, I would be lying if I said I didn't have to adjust my understanding of it sometimes.' Despite the internal complexities, many are hoping to see a renewed sense of militancy and street politics in the younger LGBTQ+ generation. Sunday's rally and March for Freedom, starting at the Lincoln Memorial, is expected to be particularly defiant given the 2025 context. 'I think we're going to see a whole new era of activism,' Perry says. 'I think we will find our spine and our walking shoes – maybe orthopedic – and protest again. But I really hope that the younger generation helps us pick up this torch.'
CNN
36 minutes ago
- CNN
GOP senators' top concerns with Trump's big agenda bill, in their own words
Republicans have set an ambitious deadline of trying to pass President Donald Trump's sweeping agenda through Congress by the fourth of July, kickstarting an intensive negotiation in the US Senate where Republican lawmakers are all over the map when it comes to the specific changes they want to see made to the House-passed bill. The challenge ahead for Senate Majority Leader John Thune is he can only afford to lose three votes, but he must find consensus between conservatives in his conference who are pushing for more spending cuts and others who already fear that some of the cuts to Medicaid and rollbacks to clean energy tax credits that were a cornerstone of the House bill went too far. It's a herculean task and one made more complicated by Elon Musk publicly blasting the House bill. Adding to the challenge is the fact that whatever the Senate settles on will need to go back to the House and win approval there before the President can sign it and pass it into law. Here are senators describing in their own words their concerns and what they want to see changed in the weeks ahead. The interviews were conducted in the first week in June after lawmakers returned from recess. The transcripts below have been lightly edited for clarity. Why it matters: New work requirements for Medicaid and changes to how states can levy provider taxes made up a significant amount of the ways to save money in the House bill. Speeding up how quickly those work requirements were implemented also went a long way to secure support from the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Yet a handful of GOP senators say they need to look closely at how the changes could affect their states and their constituents. And some Republicans in the Senate are warning that the changes may need to be scaled back, a potential problem for House conservatives. 'I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state who are working and would lose health care coverage. I am not going to vote for that … There are a host of concerns but Medicaid is the big kahuna and that is where I am training my focus and my fire. I've got 1.3 million Missourians on Medicaid, or CHIP, so that's the hill to fight on.' CNN: 'Do you have concerns about the changes to the provider tax on the Medicaid side?' Justice: 'The provider tax is really important. I mean, you know, to to a lot of states, you know that we, we, we can't let that just get undermined, because you get that undermined and everything you can hurt a lot of our nursing homes a lot.' Reporter: 'My follow up question is does the House bill cut Medicaid to the bone? When you say that, are you worried that they're gonna have bigger cuts are you fine with the House as it is?' Justice: 'I do not think it cuts it to the bone, or any of the bone, but but there's, you know, you get you gotta get through all the fine print and everything, because there could be things that absolutely hurt people and everything.' 'I'm still going through the issues that I see as problematic. I'm looking at the changes in education programs like Pell grants. I've told you many times that I'm looking at the impact on rural hospitals. I support the work requirements that are in the bill. I think that makes sense.' 'There is a lot of concern. I did a couple roundtables at home, and so, you know, we talked about it, where I can look and see more deeply. There were some nuances to it that I hadn't actually understood before that are in the House bill. We haven't had a chance to digest how it's going to impact our hospitals.' 'I've said before that I want to see very – I want to make sure that we're not harming hospitals that we just spent COVID money to save. So, that's part of it, but I also care a lot about, with disabilities and so, Medicaid is an important issue. So, we'll see how, what the Senate does and I'll be lobbying to try to get something that's acceptable to me.' 'We have to take a look at states that have expanded Medicaid, to make sure that we're making a smart decision for millions of people who are under expansion – North Carolina, 620,000 Medicaid recipients alone. So, we've got to work on getting that right, giving the state legislatures and others a chance to react to it, make a recommendation, or make a change. And that's all the implementation stuff that we're beginning to talk about now that we're in possession of the bill.' Why it matters: In the Senate, a handful of lawmakers have made clear they don't think the House bill does enough to curb the country's spending problems. The argument was bolstered this week by two things. First, Musk attacked members for backing the bill he argued didn't go far enough. Then, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that they anticipated the bill in its totality would increase the country's deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The challenge here is that finding additional cuts that 51 senators can support and 218 House Republicans can sign off on is tough to do. Some of the largest savings that could have been made to programs like Medicaid were rejected in the House already by swing district Republicans who argued that the cuts could harm their constituents. Johnson: 'I talked to the President today… he's encouraged me to support the bill and I said – listen, we all want him to succeed but my bottom line is we need to seriously address the debt and deficit issue.' CNN: 'Would you be open to passing something close to the House bill now with a promise of changes in the future?' Johnson: 'Listen, I want to help the president succeed in this thing so I've got a pretty open mind. My requirement has always been a commitment to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending and a process to achieve and maintain it.' 'Come the end of September, when our fiscal year ends, the deficit's going to be $2.2 trillion. That's just not conservative. They're borrowing $5 trillion, that means they're anticipating the following year being over $2 trillion as well, so it's just not a conservative thing to do, and I've told them I can't support the bill if they're together. If they were to separate out and take the debt ceiling off that, I very much could consider the rest of the bill.' Curtis: 'If you look at the House bill, just to simplify it a little bit, we're going to spend in the next 10 years about $20 trillion more than the revenue we bring in, and they're cutting $1.5 trillion out of $20 trillion. Most of us wouldn't do that in our businesses, in our homes, and certainly don't do it in the state of Utah. And so that's a big concern to me.' CNN: 'So any substantial changes to get your support?' Curtis: 'I'm not drawing red lines, right, like I'm being careful. But I think we have to do our best work to get my support.' Why it matters: At the end of the House's precarious negotiations, members of the House Freedom caucus got assurances that many of the clean energy tax credits that were part of former President Joe Biden's legacy would be rolled back and that the process for ending them would begin sooner than the original legislative text had laid out. It was a huge victory for conservatives. But, in the Senate, a handful of lawmakers are worried that the rollbacks could affect projects in their states that create jobs and income for their constituents. 'On the energy tax credits – as you know, obviously a great deal of focus on oil and natural gas in the state, but also on the clean energy side as well.' 'I've made clear that I think these investments that we have made as a country in some of these clean energy technologies, we're seeing that play forward in a lot of states, and so let's be smart about these, let's make sure if you're going to do phase-outs of this, that they're reasonable phase-outs. So I'm going to be advocating for that.' 'We're going to pay attention to how it affects Kansas. One of the issues is I think there is a lot of Senate sentiment that it's too rapid.' 'Look, the key there is to go at it through the lens of a businessperson. It's easy, you know, from a political standpoint, to cancel programs that are out there. We need to be smart about where capital has been deployed to minimize the impact on the message we're sending –that we'd send businesses, that every two or four years we have massive changes in our priorities for energy transition. We just got to get it right. It doesn't mean that I think we have to extend every program, necessarily, but I do think we have to hold businesses harmless for the programs that are there, and then calculate what the economic effect is going to be. If we don't – this is not all their spending, there's economic growth behind a lot of these as well, as we've seen in North Carolina.' Why it matters: A group of New York and California Republicans fought hard in the House to increase how much in state and local taxes constituents can deduct on their federal returns. The deduction cap went from $10,000 to $40,000 for people who fall below a certain income threshold, but the benefit really helps voters in high-tax states. In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson's majority is built on winning some of these high-tax districts. And several members in his conference made it clear they'd vote against the bill without a boost to SALT. In the Senate, the politics are very different. The provision is costly and there aren't any Republican senators representing high-tax states like New York, California, New Jersey or Illinois. Therefore, there is a lot of grumbling from GOP senators who would rather spend the billions it costs to raise the threshold on another area of the tax code. 'There's not a single senator from New York or New Jersey or California and so there's not a strong mood in the Senate Republican caucus right now to do $353 billion for states that basically the other states subsidize. But that being said, you know, like I say on every issue, nothing is resolved until it's resolved and we are working things out.' CNN: 'Is there any way the $40,000 cap survives?' Tillis: 'I hope not. But, you know, I'll have to that is one where I don't. I believe when I draw a red line, I stick to it. I'm not willing to draw a red line there, but I would be a lot happier, in total, I'd be a lot happier seeing that number come down. I've said it before. It's because it's personal to me. I took all the criticism for making North Carolina not a SALT state, and now you're telling me I've got to subsidize the bad decisions made in Albany and Sacramento. So it's at the end of the day, if they do their work in their state, they should be talking to state senators, not US senators, to fix that problem.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
California shifts from Musk glee to Trump dread
The dissolution of the Donald Trump-Elon Musk marriage was enough, for a brief moment, to lift beleaguered California Democrats' spirits. But within 24 hours, the gleeful mood in this heavily Democratic state darkened amid sweeping immigration raids and reports the Trump administration was planning to yank funding from California. The swift reversal was a reminder that, for all the delight Democrats took in a public feud between the president and the world's richest man, a war of words on X is far less consequential than a hostile White House. Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders on Friday quickly returned to a familiar defensive crouch, condemning the White House's reported plan and escalating the standoff by threatening to withhold the money California sends to Washington. 'We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,' Newsom said in a post on X. 'Maybe it's time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump.' It was unclear on Friday what money the White House might rescind. A spokesperson said no decision had been made. Many Democrats had spent the previous day reveling in the extraordinary break between Trump and his former patron Musk, piling on in a cascade of snarky tweets, triumphant news hits and floor speeches. The joy was especially palpable in California, where Democrats watched Musk transform from a source of pride to a conservative nemesis eager to attack the state that helped make him. The dunking contest seemed to open new political possibilities, as Musk amplified Democrats' case against tariffs and the GOP 'megabill' being debated in Congress — two central features of the president's agenda. But the respite from unforgiving news cycles proved short-lived. And it vindicated warnings from some Democrats that the Trump-Musk feud was distracting from the more serious threats emanating from Washington. For Rep. Dave Min, who is preparing to defend a frontline Orange County seat that could help determine control of the House, Thursday was all about Musk: He excoriated the Tesla executive in a preplanned floor speech, and joined the mockery on X. On Friday, Min was scrambling to confront what he called a 'blatantly lawless' push to claw back funds. 'These cuts appear to be clearly and on their face illegal and motivated by vengeance and political retribution aimed at our state,' Min wrote in a letter to the White House. Rep. Jimmy Gomez went from tweaking Trump with a Taylor Swift meme to sounding the alarm about immigration arrests throughout Los Angeles, a resolutely Democratic county, that followed Trump's vow to target 'sanctuary' jurisdictions that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities. Union officials said SEIU California President David Huerta was detained and injured during a protest of immigration raids, drawing condemnations from a broad swathe of elected officials (ICE did not respond to a request for comment). Californians were simultaneously rallying in San Francisco against federal plans to rename a naval ship named after the late gay-rights icon Harvey Milk. Against the backdrop of that multifront defensive, the feuding between Trump and Musk became a secondary concern, at best. Newsom passed on a chance to swipe at Musk, with whom he has a long and complicated relationship, telling reporters during an unrelated news conference on Thursday that he hoped people mesmerized by 'what Elon Musk tweeted today and what Trump said tomorrow can focus on what matters' — although Newsom's press office still used a Trump-Musk breakup reference to tease the news conference, Similarly, Rep. Laura Friedman called the Trump-Musk meltdown a distraction from the White House's agenda to remake the federal government. 'They are cutting health care from Americans, they are destroying people's ability to go to the doctor and get health care coverage, they are making life more expensive for everyday people through tariffs,' Friedman said. 'I hope people see through the entertainment value of this — it is funny, but this is harmful to our country in so many ways.' Few were laughing by Friday afternoon. Instead, leading California Democrats were once again girding for battle with an administration that has made a habit of threatening to block money for areas like wildfire recovery, education and law enforcement if California does not change its policies. 'We must look at every option, including withholding federal taxes,' Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said in a BlueSky post.
