Dozens of measures met their demise in Carson City last week
Approximately a quarter of the 1,093 bills and resolutions introduced into the Nevada State Legislature's 2025 Session are now considered dead after failing to meet a key deadline last week.
Bills and resolutions had to pass out of a committee by Friday, which marked day 68 of the 120-day session; 281 did not. The remainder of the bills either did advance or are exempt from the deadlines.
Among the most high profile to die on Friday: a proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution to allow for a state lottery. Assembly Joint Resolution 5 was passed by the 2023 Legislature and needed to be passed by the 2025 Legislature in order to advance to the 2026 General Election ballot for final approval by voters. It was not given a hearing before Friday's deadline.
The lottery proposal was pushed by Culinary Union, which on Monday issued a statement deriding Democratic leadership for not giving the resolution a hearing this session.
'With federal cuts looming, uncertainty around the state budget, and lack of funding for education and mental health, Nevadans need real solutions and we need it now,' Secretary-Treasurer Ted Pappageorge said in a statement. 'Politicians cannot complain about budget shortfalls while refusing to even consider a bill that would bring in new revenue.'
A second bill being pushed by Culinary, Senate Bill 360, also died Friday. Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo had said he would veto the bill if it made it to his desk, and the bill would have faced significant resistance in the Legislature anyway.
Dubbed the Hotel Safety Act, SB360 was sponsored by state Sen. Lori Rogich, a Republican who Culinary endorsed over a Democratic incumbent in last year's general election. Culinary had previously endorsed the incumbent, Dallas Harris, but withdrew support for her and other Democrats after they voted against a similar room cleaning proposal in 2023. (Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno, who sponsored the lottery resolution, was also 'unendorsed.')
Another high-profile bill that died Friday was Senate Bill 415, which would have allowed local jurisdictions to use automated traffic enforcement cameras. The more sweeping of two red light camera bills introduced this session, SB415 was considered problematic by civil rights groups like the ACLU of Nevada.
The second red light camera bill, Democratic Assemblymember Selena Torres-Fossett's Assembly Bill 402, is still alive. That bill is exempt from standard deadlines but cleared the Assembly Growth and Infrastructure Committee last week. It would authorize traffic monitoring cameras in construction work zones when workers are present.
Opponents of automated red light cameras say they will continue monitoring bills to see if lawmakers attempt to amend parts of SB415 into other bills, including AB402.
'The deployment of red-light cameras is often framed as a matter of public safety, but in reality, most civil liberties abuses happen under the guise of public safety,' said ACLU of Nevada Executive Director Athar Haseebullah in a statement Monday.
Two bills sponsored on behalf of the Nevada Highway Patrol also failed to advance. Assembly Bill 54 would have subjected a driver to a felony if they failed to move over for an emergency services provider and that resulted in the death of a first responder. The bill received a hearing but was not passed out of committee.
A second Nevada Highway Patrol proposal, Senate Bill 37 would have criminalized road rage. It never received a hearing.
Other bills and resolutions the Nevada Current has covered that are now dead:
Assembly Joint Resolution 6, sponsored by 27 Democrats. The resolution, which passed in 2023 but needed to be passed once more by the Legislature and then by voters, would have had Nevada enter the National Popular Vote Compact, an interstate agreement wherein states commit to allocating their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. AJR6 was not given a hearing by the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections.
Assembly Bill 33, sponsored by Republican State Controller Andy Matthews. The bill would have established a Nevada Inspector General. Described by some as having 'DOGE vibes,' the bill was heard by the Assembly Government Affairs Committee but no action was taken.
Assembly Bill 141, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Duy Nguyen. The bill would have required judicial candidates to have participated in at least 10 trials. The bill received a poor reception in the Assembly Judiciary Committee during its hearing and no action was taken.
Senate Bill 242, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Edgar Flores. The bill would have prohibited investment companies from purchasing residential properties unless they have been listed on the market for at least 30 days. The bill never received a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but other attempts to rein in corporate ownership of single-family homes did move forward.
Assembly Bill 129, sponsored by Republican Assemblymember Jill Dickman, and Senate Bill 221 and Senate Bill 222, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Carrie Ann Buck. This trio of homeowners association bills died without receiving hearings, but at least half a dozen other HOA-focused bills have advanced.
Of course, nothing is ever truly dead in the Legislature. For proof of that, just look to Assembly Bill 381, dubbed Reba's Law, which mandates prison time for killing a domestic animal. Sponsored by Republican Assemblymember Melissa Hardy, the bill failed to advance out of committee by Friday's committee deadline only to be posthumously given a waiver and advanced on Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 minutes ago
A look at Texas' redistricting walkout and California's response, by the numbers
A walkout by Democratic legislators in Texas has ended and Republicans arranged to push a plan for redrawing the state's congressional districts through the GOP-controlled Legislature and give President Donald Trump a better political landscape. Democrats' boycott of daily sessions kept the House from passing a new map because the state constitution requires 100 of the chamber's 150 members to be present to do business. Democrats hold 62 seats. A national, partisan brawl over redistricting has now started to shift to California, where Democrats are hoping to impose a new map that offsets any advantage Trump and his fellow Republicans might gain in Texas. Here's a breakdown by the numbers. Texas is the nation's second most-populous state and has 38 congressional seats. Republicans hold 25 of them but are hoping to boost that number to 30. Their goal is to make it easier for the GOP to hold on to its slim U.S. House majority in the 2026 midterm elections, so that Democrats have little ability to thwart Trump's agenda and can't initiate investigations of his administration. Democrats hold 43 of 52 congressional seats in California, the nation's most populous state. At Gov. Gavin Newsom's urging, they've drafted a proposal to increase the number to 48. However, the current map was drawn by an independent commission created though a voter-approved ballot initiative in 2008. To avoid legal challenges, Democrats want to put their proposal on the ballot in a special election in November. Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau and sometimes in response to a court ruling. Changes are required to keep a state's congressional districts equal in population after people move into or out of an area. Trump is pushing for a rare mid-decade redistricting in Texas, and Republicans are also considering it in other states including Missouri, Florida and Indiana. Republicans currently hold 219 seats in the U.S. House, seven more than the 212 held by Democrats. Four of the chamber's 435 seats are vacant, three of them previously held by Democrats. Midterm elections most often go against the president's party. In 2018, during Trump's first term, Democrats had a net gain of 41 seats to capture the House majority. Most House Democrats left Texas on Aug. 3 and stayed outside the state for 15 days. They fled to blue states like Illinois, California and Massachusetts to stay out of the reach of the Texas law enforcement officers trying to bring them back. Many of the same lawmakers also walked out in 2021 for 38 days to protest GOP proposals for new voting restrictions. Once they returned, Republicans passed them into law. The Democrats who bolted for other states and returned now have an around-the-clock escort from Texas Department of Public Safety officers to make sure they return to the Capitol, House Speaker Dustin Burrows' office said. Burrows' office did not provide more details, calling it an ongoing law enforcement operation. Plainclothes officers escorted them from the chamber after Monday's session.
9 minutes ago
Maryland tax on digital ads violated Big Tech's free speech, judges say
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland's first-in-the-nation tax on digital advertising violated the Constitution, a federal appeals court says, because blocking Big Tech from telling customers about the tax violates the companies' right to free speech. Supporters say Maryland needed to overhaul its tax methods in response to significant changes in how businesses advertise. The tax focuses on large companies that make money advertising on the internet such as Meta, Google and Amazon, who say they're being unfairly targeted. The ongoing legal fight is being watched by other states that are considering taxes for online ads. Maryland estimated the tax could raise about $250 million a year to help pay for a sweeping K-12 education measure. Maryland's law says the companies must not only pay the tax, but avoid telling customers how it affects pricing, with no line items, surcharges or fees, said the appeals court Friday in siding with trade associations fighting the tax. Judge Julius Richardson cited the Colonial-era Stamp Act, which helped spark the Revolutionary War, and wrote that 'criticizing the government — for taxes or anything else — is important discourse in a democratic society.' The plaintiffs contended Maryland lawmakers were trying to insulate themselves from criticism and political accountability by forbidding companies from explaining the tax to their customers. 'A state cannot duck criticism by silencing those affected by its tax,' the judge wrote. The unanimous ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby and sends the case back to her with instructions to consider an appropriate remedy in light of the panel's decision. Trade groups praised the decision. 'Maryland tried to prevent criticism of its tax scheme, and the Fourth Circuit recognized that tactic for what it was: censorship,' said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement. Maryland Comptroller Brooke Lierman, who is the defendant in the case, and the Maryland attorney general's office, who is representing the state, declined to comment Monday. The law has been challenged in multiple legal venues, including Maryland Tax Court, where the case is ongoing. The law imposes a tax based on global annual gross revenues for companies that make more than $100 million globally. Under the law, the tax rate is 2.5% for businesses making more than $100 million in global gross annual revenue; 5% for companies making $1 billion or more; 7.5% for companies making $5 billion or more and 10% for companies making $15 billion or more. The Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, overrode a veto of the legislation in 2021 by then-Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican.
24 minutes ago
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law.
