Latest news with #AssemblyJudiciaryCommittee
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Riot bill shelved by Assembly Committee
Protesters gather to march in Wauwatosa alongside the families of Antonio Gonzales, Jay Anderson Jr., and Alvin Cole in 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner) A Republican-sponsored bill that would have defined a riot as a gathering of at least three people that could pose a threat of property damage or injury has been removed from the Assembly Judiciary Committee's executive session agenda. The bill has been criticized for being overly broad, and potentially chilling First Amendment protections of protest and free speech. Besides defining a riot, the bill also exposed accused rioters and riot organizers to felony charges and civil liability including restitution for attorneys' fees and property damage, and carried a prohibition on government officials with authority over law enforcement from limiting an agency's response to quell unrest. Rep. Andrew Hysell (D- Sun Prairie), a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, said that he criticized the bill because it 'actually weakens existing law for the very people it was supposed to help.' The committee held a public hearing on the bill on May 7, at which a large number of Wisconsinites voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R- Two Rivers), one of the bill's authors, testified in favor of the bill, saying that it's needed to prevent protests from spinning out of control into riots, property destruction, and injury. Sortwell and other republican supporters of the bill referenced protests and unrest in 2020 in Kenosha and Madison. Among those who testified against the bill was Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Madison). Like other critics, Clancy said the bill was written vaguely in order to be applied broadly to crack down on protest movements. 'While myself and many of my Democratic colleagues are tired of wasting our time and our constituents' resources on badly written, unconstitutional bills like AB-88, I'm ecstatic that Republicans have abandoned this one for now,' Clancy said in a statement after the bill was shelved by the Assembly committee. 'It's clear that passionate, thoughtful testimony from the public, free speech advocates and civil rights experts – along with excellent technical critiques from Rep. Andrew Hysell – has stopped this so-called 'anti-riot' bill dead in its tracks.' Clancy added that 'in reality, however, this isn't an 'anti-riot' bill: it's a threat to free speech, expression and assembly disguised as a public safety measure. Thankfully, it's now unlikely to move forward this session.' During the May 7 committee hearing where people spoke either in favor of or against the bill, one man wore a hat which used an expletive to denounce President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tulser (R- Harrison) demanded that the man remove the hat because it was offensive. Tulser threatened to have law enforcement remove the man, and called the hearing into recess. Later, when the hearing continued, the man was allowed to continue wearing the hat. Clancy told Tulser his emotional reaction to the hat and his impulse to call for police was an example of how a broad, penalty-heavy bill for protests like AB-88 is a bad idea. In his statement, Clancy urged his colleagues to spend 'less time trying to dismantle our rights and getting angry at rude hats' and more time 'addressing the actual needs of Wisconsin residents. Until that changes, we must all remain vigilant to fight back their next, terrible idea.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislation would extend review period between death warrant and execution
State Sen. James Ohrenschall said he 'personally doesn't support the death penalty' and would rather see it abolished, but the legislation would at least ensure attorneys have an adequate amount of time to litigate issues once a death warrant is issued. (Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current) Four years after state lawmakers failed to pass legislation to abolish the death penalty, despite having a Democratic trifecta, a bill this year would extend the time period for carrying out a potential execution. Nevada law currently calls for an execution to take place between 60 and 90 days after an execution is warranted. Senate Bill 350, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. James Ohrenschall of Las Vegas, would lengthen the timeframe to between 180 and 270 days. Ohrenschall said he 'personally doesn't support the death penalty' and would rather see it abolished. There have been 23 states that have abolished the death penalty, citing concerns including but not limited to racial disparities in the number of death row inmates, the high costs of capital cases going to trial, and documented likely instances of people being put to death after wrongful convictions, as well as people being exonerated while on death row. The legislation seeks to ensure attorneys have an adequate amount of time to litigate any issues that arise once an execution is ordered, Ohrenschall said. The legislation would also ensure that there is only one execution warrant that would be pending in Nevada at any given time. 'In Nevada, unlike other states, an execution warrant is issued by the district judge in the county where the conviction occurred,' said David Anthony, an attorney who specializes in capital cases who alongside Ohrenschall described the bill to a legislative panel. 'In many other states, execution warrants are issued by a single entity.' The bill passed out of the Senate April 21 on a 13-8 party-line vote. The legislation was heard Wednesday by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Nevada hasn't executed anyone since 2006. The state tried, and failed, to execute Scott Dozier in 2017. A lengthy legal battle over the drugs being used to kill Dozier resulted in the execution being postponed until he died by suicide in early 2019. Ohrenschall, along with Democratic Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, both introduced separate bills in 2021 to abolish the state's death penalty. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak said at the time he had a 'hard time with the idea of a complete abolition' and thought executions should be reserved for extreme cases. Despite uncertainty on whether Sisolak would sign a bill abolishing the death penalty, the Nevada Assembly voted 26-16 in a party line vote to advance Yeager's bill. The legislation then stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and died without getting another vote. Anthony said SB 350 represented 'a common sense reform that helps bring the law into conformity with what the actual practice is in litigating capital cases.' While there are ways for people to appeal their cases and delay their execution, 'there are certain constitutional rights that cannot be litigated until there is an execution warrant,' he said. The bill, Anthony said, would also give the Nevada Department of Corrections additional time to complete all the protocols statutorily required prior to an execution, including mental health evaluations and health exams. NDOCDirector James Dzurenda told lawmakers Wednesday the logistics of training staff, notifying victims and procuring the drugs for an execution is hard to accomplish in a short time period. The logistics for planning more than one execution concurrently would be 'a nightmare process for corrections,' he added. 'What we do is we prepare,' Dzurenda said. 'Even right now we are preparing for an execution in case we get one next week. That's a lot of wasted taxpayer money. If we had an extension at the beginning of an execution we could prepare when we get a warrant. Right now we have to prepare before we get a warrant.' There are currently 59 people on death row in Nevada according to the Death Penalty Information Center. But Dzurenda also said that if the timeframe is extended 'too much could actually hurt the process' and opens the possibility for 'appeals that may not have been necessary in my eyes or get these far fetched appeals that could stretch out an execution.' Similar to efforts to get rid of the death penalty, the Nevada District Attorneys Association opposed efforts to change the timeframe for carrying out executions. Jennifer Noble, a lobbyist with the association who testified against the bill Wednesday, said there is already a lengthy and robust process for people to challenge and appeal their guilty verdict as well as the death sentence. 'This bill will not make anything easier on victims,' Noble said. Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in a letter supporting Ohrenschall's legislation, wrote it wouldn't lead to unnecessary delays but 'rather reflect the time actually needed to ensure due process at a time when the stakes could not be higher.' Mark Bettencourt, the executive director with the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty, said while the coalition was still pursuing an end to the death penalty, the legislation was a 'common sense bill' to ensure that if an execution was carried out it wasn't rushed. 'It's been almost 20 years since we've had an execution in this state,' he said. 'To rush that now risks a botched execution and taking the life of an innocent person.'
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposed ‘second look' law would allow some lengthy prison sentences to be reviewed
"This is not a get out of jail free card," said the bill's sponsor, Democratic Assemblymember Erica Roth. (Legislative stream screengrab) In the last few legislative sessions, Nevada has seen reforms to the criminal legal system to ensure certain crimes, such as low-level drug offenses, don't lead to lengthy sentences. State lawmakers should also consider a process to review the sentences of those who have already been incarcerated for a prolonged period of time, says Democratic Assemblymember Erica Roth. Assembly Bill 91, deemed 'second look' legislation, would create an avenue for those incarcerated to have sentences reviewed by the State Board of Parole Commissioners after they've served extended periods of time. 'We as a body and legislators have realized that placing somebody in prison for extreme amounts of time does not necessarily meet the public policy goals, especially when they have been rehabilitated,' Roth, a Reno Democrat, said during hearing on the bill earlier this month. AB 91 passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee April 11 in a party line vote but hasn't been heard in the Assembly. It has until Tuesday to receive a vote in the Assembly. Except for bills declared exempt, legislation must be passed in its house of origin by then to move forward. Lawmakers in previous years have sought to address the growing prison population by revising sentencing guidelines and bolstering diversion programs. A 2019 bill that passed with bipartisan support reduced penalties for non-violent theft and drug crimes while increasing access to speciality court programs. Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo has tried to roll back those provisions, but with only limited success. He's proposing more punitive measures this session that include increasing penalties for drug dealers and curtailing early discharge from probation for gun violations. Lombardo's efforts to pass tougher actions come as the Nevada Department of Corrections faces a $50 million budget shortfall during a session in which lawmakers are growing more and more apprehensive about the prospects of reduced revenue as a result of a slowing economy. The bill is also likely to face challenges from a Legislature controlled by many of the same Democrats who passed the criminal justice reforms Lombardo has targeted. Meanwhile, state lawmakers in the interim session voted to pursue a 'second look' authorizing sentencing review boards to re-evaluate some sentences. The legislation's proponents note it not only addresses the far-reading societal harms inflicted by mass incarceration, it is also a way to reduce the prison population, which could alleviate financial strains. There have been 13 states along with the District of Columbia that have passed similar 'second look' review policies, according to the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. The Nevada legislation also allows the parole board to 'grant a second look review' for people convicted of Category A offenses, which include murder and sexual assault, provided the incarcerated person has served 25 years. For category B felonies, such as robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, they must have served at least 15 years. Lawmakers were told during interim legislative hearings last year that of the slightly less than 11,000 people incarcerated by the Nevada Department of Corrections, 1,888 were sentenced to more than 15 years, and of those, 1,272 people currently incarcerated have already served 15 years. Those serving life sentences, sentenced to death or deemed as 'a significant and articulable risk to public safety' wouldn't be eligible for consideration. The bill also expands opportunities for parole for people convicted of crimes before turning 25, opportunities currently only extended to those who committed crimes before 18. 'Research shows individuals tend to age out of high crime years as they mature, making extended incarceration less effective in reducing recidivism,' Roth said. 'Second look policies also recognize the developmental difference between youth and adults, aligning again with national reforms that provide greater opportunities for youth offenders.' Republican Assemblyman Ken Gray, of Dayton, questioned why the state needed to provide additional ways for inmates to attempt to reduce their sentences. 'There's a lot of different avenues you can go through with your attorney,' he said. 'It just seems like we're just adding more and more ways to challenge what, at the time, is a fair sentence.' While there are ways for people to challenge the constitutionality of the case or any issue associated with the trial, there aren't many ways for people to challenge or review the sentence itself, Roth said. The bill was supported by public defenders throughout the state. 'Twenty five years, 15 years, is a long time,' said Angela Knott, a public defender with Washoe County. 'AB 91 reflects the belief that people shouldn't be defined by their worst actions. It gives those who have truly changed, who have grown up and matured, a chance to prove their potential for a positive contribution to society.' The prison rights advocacy group Return Strong and the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty, though not opposing the bill, said it falls short. 'Building mechanisms for people to have an opportunity and hope for freedom is a huge motivator for change,' said Nicole Williams, a board member with Return Strong. But the bill, she said, doesn't go far enough since it excludes people serving life without parole sentences. 'This exclusion fails to account for individuals who were sentenced under outdated policies, extreme sentencing practices, who were targeted by racist law, or those who have demonstrated remarkable rehabilitation while incarcerated,' Williams said. District Attorneys and law enforcement agencies opposed the bill. Jennifer Noble, a lobbyist with Nevada District Attorneys Association, specifically cited provisions allowing a second look for those convicted of sexual assault and murder. She agreed it's not a 'foregone conclusion' that those convicted of such crimes would win release, the process itself could come at the expense of victims. 'To ensure victims will be heard as required by the constitution … they have to be notified, they have to decide whether to participate, they have to relieve these events and they have to be retraumatized,' Noble said. 'Lawful sentences should not be second guessed every two years each time an offender can file a new petition under this bill.' Roth said there is nothing in the bill that prevents the parole board from considering the person's crime and the impact of victims. It simply asks the review board to consider 'how old they were, how much they've changed, what they've accomplished', she said. 'At the end of the day, this is not a get out of jail free card,' Roth said. 'This is an opportunity for the board, who already makes these reviews on a daily basis, to consider a human being and who they are holistically.'
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Reba's Law resurrected after expiring in legislative committee
Assemblymember Brittney Miller. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Legislation that could land animal abusers in prison for as long as ten years passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee late Monday after it appeared to die last week without a vote before the Legislature's first deadline. 'Amendments come and go and change at rapid speed as we approach the deadline,' the committee's chairperson, Assemblywoman Brittany Miller said during Monday's work session, indicating her internal polling of committee members last week, as amendments were crafted in the final hours, did not bode well for the measure. 'At no time was there anyone who doesn't want to address the heinous crimes and acts of animal cruelty.' Miller said lawmakers 'don't always have time to process' amendments, adding the committee was able to obtain a waiver allowing the Assembly Judiciary to vote Assembly Bill 381 out of committee. The bill, Reba's Law, was 'able to be resurrected,' Miller said, resulting in a 'much more intense, robust bill than we had before.' The measure is named for Reba, a bulldog who died of heat stroke days after she was found in a sealed tote behind a business last summer. An amendment from the Nevada District Attorneys Association eliminated provisions that would have allowed for the prosecution of individuals who allow the abuse of an animal. The amendment also removes language requiring permission from the animal's owner or a veterinarian to euthanize an animal. It instead requires a peace officer to forfeit the animal to a local government if the owner does not request a hearing within a certain time frame, or cannot be found within five business days. The local government must then decide whether to euthanize the animal or transfer ownership to a rescue organization, shelter or individual. Causing the death of an animal would be deemed a category B felony, and could land offenders in prison for one to ten years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson complained last year he needed stiffer penalties to impose against animal abusers than those allowed by law. However, a review of cases prosecuted by Wolfson indicates he rarely seeks prison time, even in egregious cases. Lynn Whatford, a Clark County resident who cared for community cats in her neighborhood, spent much of the last year seeking justice for a colony of two dozen cats she says disappeared one by one. She suspects her neighbor killed them. Nevada Voters for Animals founder Gina Greisen told lawmakers that Wolfson declined to prosecute the case after Whatford discovered a trapped cat left in her neighbor's yard without protection from the sun and a high temperature of 114 degrees on July 25, the day the cat likely died. A veterinarian's post mortem examination noted 'it is clear (the cat) experienced extreme physical suffering in an inescapable situation, and that heat stroke is the likely cause of death in this case.' Whatford complained to Clark County Animal Control for months that the cats were disappearing and that she heard cries coming from her neighbor's yard. 'Animal Control told me I needed proof, yet the officer couldn't access my neighbor's property to get the proof. Animal Control referred me to Metro, but the detective wouldn't do anything until I had proof,' Whatford said during an interview in September. Greisen testified in support of the measure, but warned that without proper training and resources for police and animal control officers, stricter penalties will do little to help stem abuse and neglect. Las Vegas justice activist Leslie Turner testified in opposition and said the measure is 'just another way to funnel more people into the criminal legal system,' and does nothing to address the causes of cruelty, including 'mental health struggles, childhood trauma, cycles of violence, economic instability.' A one to ten year sentence, she noted, exceeds the one to six year sentence for child abuse. 'How can we justify punishing someone more harshly for harming an animal than for harming a child? What does this say about our priorities?' she asked in written testimony, adding lawmakers should instead invest in 'education, early intervention, and community-based mental health resources.'
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nevada Democrat introduces proposal to ban book bans
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A proposal in the Nevada Legislature would ban school districts and staff from banning books without a court order determining the material is obscene. Assembly Bill 416 from Democratic Assem. Brittney Miller, who is also chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would prevent a school's governing body 'from limiting access to library materials by pupils under certain circumstances' and create penalties for people who essentially ban items from school libraries. 'Banning book bans is essential to upholding the First Amendment because it protects our fundamental right to free speech and the free exchange of ideas,' Miller said in a statement Monday. 'AB416 will ensure that individuals — not the government — decide what they read, write or think. Book bans silence voices, limit access to diverse perspectives, and suppresses free speech.' Existing law allows a district attorney or city attorney to file a court order to have a book deemed 'obscene.' A Legislative Counsel digest includes guidance that obscenity related to books involves '[lack of] serious literary artistic, political or scientific value' and the depiction of 'certain sexual acts, excretory functions, sadism or masochism or lewdly exhibits the genitals.' The proposal would make it a Category E felony to 'threaten or attempt to use any force, intimidation, coercion, violence, restraint or undue influence' to 'prevent a pupil from using or accessing library materials; or induce or compel the board of trustees of a school district, the governing body of a charter school or a school employee to violate' the non-banning provisions. The law would also make it a Category E felony to 'dox' a school board trustee or employee. The Clark County School District, Nevada's largest, updated its instruction material policy last December, including a process for challenging books involving a committee. A hearing was scheduled for April 8. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
