Annual sessions measure moves ahead in Nevada Legislature

CARSON CITY - A plan to let Nevada voters decide in 2000 whether they want annual legislative sessions advanced Tuesday in a state Senate committee.

Government Affairs members voted 4-3 to send AJR5 to the Senate floor for a final legislative test. Already passed by the Assembly, its next destination after a Senate vote would be the 2000 ballot.

The plan was pushed by Assemblyman Bob Price, D-North Las Vegas, who for the last 13 years had tried repeatedly to get annual legislative sessions approved in Nevada.

Until last session, the effort didn't have a lot of support - other than from Carson City businesses that profit from the influx of 63 legislators and several hundred lobbyists and staffers.

Earlier attempts were buried in the state Senate for years. But at the end of the 1997 session, Price's proposed constitutional amendment finally saw legislative daylight.

Under the plan, lawmakers would meet for a regular session of 120 days in 2001 and will meet for 45 days the following year to make adjustments in the budget.

The reason for the measure's success this year stems from a 1997 agreement between the two houses: Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, backed Price's AJR5 because Price supported Raggio's bill to limit the length of the current every-other-year sessions to 120 days.

This session, Price's measure squeaked out of the Assembly on a 23-18 vote - just one more than the required minimum.

Raggio, a Government Affairs member, said he'd honor his deal with Price to ensure that voters will have final say on the annual sessions issue.

But Raggio said he's not convinced annual sessions are needed and probably will campaign against the idea during the 2000 campaign season.

Nevada lawmakers tried annual sessions once before, in 1960. But immediately after that, voters decided against the concept and the every-other-year sessions have continued since then.

Price wants Nevada to follow the example of 43 states that have annual sessions. He maintains annual sessions make better sense because of the difficulty of estimating tax revenues for the state's two-year budget.

Critics include the Nevada Taxpayers Association and Nevada Concerned Citizens, a conservative lobbying group.

While the state has changed rapidly in the past decade, nearly doubling the population in that time, the opponents say annual sessions mean more laws and the possibility of more taxes.

Other opponents say annual sessions would be too expensive, effectively doubling the cost of lawmaking in the state.

And they worry that the face of the Nevada Legislature would also be changed by going to annual sessions.

With sessions now being held every other year, the state is represented by a citizen legislature made up of teachers, business owners, police officers and a waitress, among other professions.

archive