Nevada Legislature ends; crime bill, film studio bill die
Before some key items could get approval, Senate Republicans stopped proceedings. They objected to changes for Legislative Commission positions right up until the midnight deadline
The result: Gov. Joe Lombardo's crime bill, a health care bill, and the film tax credit expansions all died.
The governor has around 10 days to sign or veto the passed legislation. He can also decide whether lawmakers could reconvene.
'No, I do not want the governor to call a special session. I think that there are a lot of things that we can work out and that will move it forward. Maybe we can come up with some better idea that we can all concur on.' Senator Robin Titus (R-Yerington) said.
Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizarro (D-Nevada) said little after the conclusion of the session. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) said he's frustrated, but good legislation did pass.
'Well, I still think it's likely that we're going to have a special session towards the end of the year because that's really based on the federal budget. And, you know, if the federal government starts cutting, for instance, Medicaid, that's going to have big, big, big impacts on our budget. So I've always thought that that's likely to happen. Whether we're going to have a more immediate special session really depends on the governor,' Yeager said.
A status of the bills can be found at this link.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Pence calls for secondary sanctions on Russia
Former Vice President Pence urged the Senate on Thursday to pass a major sanctions bill against Russia, arguing that the hefty tariffs, along with continued military aid to Ukraine, provide the best 'pathway' to reaching peace in Eastern Europe. 'He's fully capable of doing the diplomatic thing and being friendly and shaking hands and at the same time saying, here's the economic consequences that are going to happen, unless you step forward,' Pence said of President Trump during his appearance on NewsNation's show 'The Hill.' 'If we pass those secondary sanctions, Vladimir Putin will understand that we could literally break their economy and by providing continued military support for Ukraine, that combination of efforts, I think, is the best pathway to peace,' the former vice president told host Blake Burman. The sanctions bill, which has been pushed by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would impose 500 percent tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil and gas. The measure has over 85 co-sponsors in the upper chamber, but the Senate left for recess before advancing the bill, deferring to Trump to give the green light. 'We propose in our bill 500 percent. If it's 250 percent, I could live with it. Even if it's 100 percent, possibly. But you ought to impose bone-crushing sanctions that will stop them from fueling Russia's war machine,' Blumenthal said earlier this month. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Monday that Trump should be 'commended' for his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war and signaled the Senate is 'ready' to provide the president 'any economic leverage needed to keep Russia at the table to negotiate a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.' Trump has pushed to end the three-and-a-half-year war, meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, along with seven European leaders, on Monday at the White House. Since then, Russian officials have expressed doubt about the possibilities of a speedy peace deal with Ukraine, including agreeing on security guarantees for Kyiv and scheduling a bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelensky, for which the president has advocated for some time. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov questioned Zelensky's legitimacy on Thursday and stated the security guarantees under ongoing talks are 'hopeless.' Lavrov claimed that Putin is ready to meet with the Ukrainian president with the 'understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level will be well worked out.' Trump said Thursday that 'interesting times [are] ahead' and slammed his predecessor, former President Biden, over his administration's policy of barring Ukraine from using U.S. long-range weapons to strike deep inside Russia. 'It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country. It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning! It is like that with Ukraine and Russia,' the president said on Truth Social. Pence, in the interview with NewsNation, argued that one of the reasons why Putin did not invade Ukraine during Trump's first White House term is that the Trump-Pence administration 'had the credible threat of the use of force.' 'He saw us take action, unleashing our military to take down the ISIS caliphate,' Pence said on Thursday. 'Send cruise missiles into Syria to take down Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader.'
Politico
9 minutes ago
- Politico
Californians' love-hate relationship with high-speed rail
Presented by With help from Camille von Kaenel and Noah Baustin HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL: California voters aren't confident the state's high-speed rail project will ever be finished, but they're not ready to give up on it either. Nearly two-thirds — 62 percent — of voters say that California should continue bankrolling the planned rail line from the Bay Area to Los Angeles after the Trump administration clawed back $4 billion in federal grants last month, according to an exclusive POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll. The poll revealed a clear partisan divide among the more than 1,400 registered voters surveyed, as just 21 percent of Democrats said it's time to pull the plug, compared to 45 percent of independents and 62 percent of Republicans. But that doesn't mean liberal Californians believe it's any more likely that they'll be able to ride from Southern California to San Francisco in their lifetime. Just 27 percent of Democrats said there's a high likelihood the project will be completed, roughly matching the 23 percent of their conservative counterparts who believe California officials can finish the first high-speed rail line in North America. That seemingly counterintuitive outcome offers a lesson for Gov. Gavin Newsom and the candidates vying to replace him who've doubled down on their support: It's time to put up or shut up. 'There definitely is this sense that the state can't do big things,' said Andrew Acosta, a veteran California Democratic campaign consultant. 'Californians would like to see it happen, but show me the last project that came in on time or under budget.' That sentiment is reflected in the poll, as 38 percent of Democrats said their support is contingent on the project keeping to its current budget. But, in the short term, President Donald Trump's incessant hammering of a project beset with construction delays and cost overruns could be doing California officials a favor. His Federal Railroad Administration yanked $4 billion in Obama- and Biden-era grants last month, following a barrage of attacks from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, congressional and state Republicans. 'This project was Severely Overpriced, Overregulated, and NEVER DELIVERED,' Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social, the day the federal funding was revoked. 'Not a SINGLE penny in Federal Dollars will go towards this Newscum SCAM ever again.' Jack Citrin, a political science professor at University of California, Berkeley, and partner on the poll, said the partisan divide over whether California should continue the project reflects a broader trend on issues that have federal connections, like electric vehicle policies. 'Any of these questions that smell of Trump, the Democrats are going to be pushed in the opposite direction,' Citrin said. Newsom and high-speed rail backers, including powerful labor unions, have countered the Republican crackdown with a proposal to guarantee $1 billion in funding annually through the state's cap-and-trade program. Democratic voters' continued support for state funding could bolster their argument as negotiations over how to divvy up revenue generated by cap-and-trade auctions heat up with less than a month before the end of the legislative session. Those are signs that even without federal help, high-speed rail isn't going anywhere in the short term. Democratic lawmakers will likely face another reckoning sooner rather than later over a project that was originally slated for completion by 2020 and is now expected to open its initial line connecting Bakersfield to Merced in 2033, with no projected date for final completion. The rail line's price tag is now estimated to cost up to $128 billion, nearly four times its original $33 billion projection. But Citrin said the results show that Democrats remain hopeful about high-speed rail, even if they have doubts. 'I think a lot of this support shows that hope springs eternal,' he said. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! PASS 'EM IF YOU'VE GOT 'EM: Kids are back in school, Labor Day plans are locked in, and it's hot enough to cook an egg on the sidewalk in Sacramento. All signs of one undeniable fact: It's almost the end of the session. Since recess ended, redistricting and a slew of major energy packages have dominated the conversation. But there's still some perfectly good legislation to pass outside the center of those dueling storms. At least so says a coalition of renewable energy business groups and advocates. The group — including former state Sen. Fran Pavley, Advanced Energy United and The Climate Center — sent a letter Thursday to Newsom and the leadership of both legislative houses and their appropriations committee making the case for giving some lower-profile energy bills some love. 'These common-sense bills will have a big impact on lowering energy costs, expanding access to clean energy, and strengthening grid reliability,' said Edson Perez, California lead with Advanced Energy United. 'But because they've faced no big controversy and advanced quietly, they risk slipping under the radar in this crowded legislative session.' So what's on the list? THE CLIMATE MONEY: Remember Proposition 4, the $10 billion climate bond voters approved last November as one of the year's big climate wins? The groups that championed it sure do — and now they're angling for their payday. Water, wildfire, conservation and renewable energy groups urged budget leaders in a Thursday letter to detail and pass a spending plan for at least $2.7 billion of the money this year. 'Given the cuts to and uncertainty around federal funding for natural resources, state investments are more important than ever,' wrote the groups, including The Nature Conservancy, American Clean Power-California and the Association of California Water Agencies. In its own letter, ACWA detailed 'shovel-ready' dam safety and recycled water projects that were originally slated to get money from the general fund but were cut in an agreement between Newsom and lawmakers to instead fund them with the bond money. Sen. Ben Allen and Assemblymember Steve Bennett, who chair the budget subcommittees overseeing environmental spending, have said in interviews they're interested in passing a spending plan for the bond money. But negotiations around the pot of money are tangled with negotiations over how to distribute cap-and-trade revenues as part of the program's reauthorization. — CvK SOAK IT UP: One reservoir's loss is another's gain. The California Water Commission voted unanimously this week to redirect $218.9 million in Prop 1 bond money it had allocated to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion, which stalled last year over disagreement over who should pay for what, to the Sites Reservoir project, bringing the total state contribution to $1 billion for the proposal to store enough American River water to supply 3 million households per year. The money comes at a good time for Sites, the state's biggest new reservoir in decades, because a brand new cost estimate hiked its ten-year-old price tag of $4.5 billion up to $6.8 billion — but it's not enough. Filling in the gap will be the water agencies who've signed up to get some of the water but have yet to finalize their contribution — most notably the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which has preliminarily signed up for a 22 percent share. The federal government, coming in at 9 percent right now, has also expressed interest in getting more of the water. If the State Water Resources Control Board signs off on its water permit as expected this year and, crucially, the cost-share is figured out, construction could start as soon as next year — making Sites a major test of California's ability to build large-scale water infrastructure in a changing climate. — CvK NUCLEAR BY THE BAY: Bay Area startups and tech veterans appear to be the earliest winners in the Trump administration's push to loosen nuclear regulations and speed up the development of small reactors. Eight of 10 companies chosen by the Department of Energy last week to compete for safety design approvals were founded in the San Francisco Bay Area or have former tech industry leaders in executive positions, as Francisco 'A.J.' Camacho reports for POLITICO's E&E News. That program aims to quickly advance nuclear technology and have at least three new pilot plants operating by July 4, 2026. The development comes after Trump signed a May executive order that allows safety designs for new reactors already tested and certified either by DOE or the Defense Department to avoid scrutiny from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Industry watchers say that change benefits startups, which are less eager to work with the NRC than are established nuclear developers like Westinghouse Nuclear and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. — AN RAISE A GLASS: How do you wrap up a day of lobbying legislators, many of whom are on the brink of rolling back major environmental regulations? You drink on it. The EnviroVoters Ed Fund (the group's 501(c)3 arm) hosted the Green CA Reception on Wednesday evening at Cafeteria 15L. POLITICO spotted Assemblymember Alex Lee in the crowd, plus a slew of environmental advocates including: Resource Renewal Institute Director of Advocacy and Engagement Scott Webb, Environmental Defense Center Chief Counsel Linda Krop, BlueGreen Alliance Senior California Policy Organizer Franki Gracey, Fearless Advocacy Inc. President Jennifer Fearing and, of course, California Environmental Voters Executive Director Mike Young. — NB SETTING THE AGENDA: On Wednesday, Aug. 27, POLITICO is hosting its inaugural California policy summit: The California Agenda. We're thrilled to announce our panel: 'California's Energy Policy at a Crossroads,' featuring state Senate energy and environment policy adviser Kip Lipper, Western States Petroleum Association CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd, Newsom senior climate adviser Lauren Sanchez and environmental justice consultant Katie Valenzuela — and moderated by our editor Debra Kahn. The live event is currently at capacity, but will be streamed. Advance registration is required — request an online invite here. — Sammy Roth at the Los Angeles Times pins California's climate backsliding on Newsom. — Southern California is facing a triple threat of extreme heat, wildfire risk and thunderstorms. — A leading expert on energy affordability has a new book on the implications of solar getting cheaper.
NBC News
9 minutes ago
- NBC News
Planned Parenthood files legal challenge to protect Medicaid funding in South Carolina
A new legal challenge from Planned Parenthood seeks to preserve Medicaid payments for its health centers in South Carolina after a Supreme Court decision put the federal funding in jeopardy. On Thursday, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic filed an amended complaint in federal court challenging the constitutionality of executive orders from Republican Gov. Henry McMaster that block Medicaid reimbursements for organizations providing abortions, even though the funds are used to provide other medical care. The South Carolina clinics provide services such as contraception, cancer screenings, annual exams and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. 'This case is about Planned Parenthood's provision of essential health care services, other than abortion, to its patients in South Carolina,' the complaint states, noting that terminating the provider from Medicaid 'will have a devastating impact on its ability to provide a wide range of non-abortion health care.' The state's action is especially harmful because many counties lack OB-GYN providers, the complaint states, and some providers are reluctant to accept Medicaid due to its low reimbursement rates. 'Our government should be expanding Medicaid providers, recruiting Medicaid providers instead of kicking them out,' said Vicki Ringer, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which serves South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. A Medicaid patient in South Carolina sued in the wake of McMaster's 2018 executive order in a case that reached the Supreme Court. In June, justices ruled that Medicaid recipients could not sue to ensure a specific provider, supporting the state's push to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding. This new battle comes as the national organization is also trying to fend off a new federal law that would ban Planned Parenthood clinics from billing Medicaid for patient care. A federal judge has temporarily blocked that provision from going into effect. But that order did not apply to state-level actions such as those in South Carolina. Three other states — Missouri, Texas and Arkansas — have already succeeded in barring Medicaid funding from the group, according to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic filed the complaint against Eunice Medina, director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the state's Medicaid program. The provider is asking the court to find McMaster's executive orders unconstitutional along with state appropriation bills that single out the organization. Attorneys are also asking the court to allow Planned Parenthood to keep receiving Medicaid payments as the case proceeds. Neither Medina nor McMaster could immediately be reached for comment. McMaster previously praised the Supreme Court's ruling, saying his administration 'took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values.' Planned Parenthood has two clinics in the state, in Charleston and Columbia. Although they provide abortions in South Carolina, with rare exception Medicaid funds can't legally be used for the procedure, which is only legal in the state in the first six weeks of pregnancy, in certain medical emergencies and in cases of rape and incest. Last year, the organization said its South Carolina clinics saw almost 400 Medicaid patients, providing a range of health care services. The complaint warns that Medicaid patients may forgo care if Planned Parenthood is forced to turn away patients in a state that already struggles with dismal health outcomes, including a high maternal mortality rate. 'For women in South Carolina, public health care is a matter of life or death,' the filing states. Apart from the harm to patients, advocates argue, allowing funds to be restricted for providers based on their support for abortion rights opens the door for politicians to cut off funding based on other services a provider might offer, such as gender-affirming care. 'We all deserve the dignity of being able to pick our doctor,' Ringer said, 'and not be denied the choice of a doctor for a political agenda.'
