Nevada Policy’s Opinions on 2023 Bills
Stay up to date on what is happening in Carson City with the 2023 Nevada Bill tracker. View the bill tracker here.
AB1: Sales & Tax Solid Waste Disposal Tax Proposal
Why We Oppose It: While this measure does require a vote of the people to pass, legislators need to stop using workarounds to the Gibbons Rule’s two-thirds majority rule.
AB5: Local Government Unfunded Liabilities Studies
Why We Support It: The legislature constantly passes unfunded burdens to local governments without account of how to pay for them, which inevitably leads to either local government debt or higher taxes. Conducting a study that collects all the information on unfunded mandates towards local governments will help drive transparency and a roadmap to address overspending.
AB6: Expansion of Patient Protection Commission Powers and Duties
Why We Oppose It: Government interference into the healthcare market has gotten us to where we are today. This legislation and the Orwellian-named Patient Protection Commission will do little to help control the cost of healthcare and much to continue to prevent a cost-effective and efficient patient-centered market to form that provides quality healthcare with great access to all Nevadans.
AB10: Expansion of Tax-Increment Financing
Why We Oppose It: Tax-increment financing systematically channels tax dollars away from school districts, police departments and fire departments, for example, and into redevelopment agencies. Redevelopment agencies use those tax dollars to make payments on bonds that have been issued in order to construct elaborate public facilities or to provide financial incentives for private developers to invest in city centers.
This approach has incurred a new and potentially worse set of unintended consequences. It exposes taxpayers within redevelopment zones, who are often low-income families, to burdensome amounts of debt in order to subsidize large-scale developers. It further creates opportunities for corruption by making public officials responsible for taxpayer funds that are explicitly designated for disbursement to private developers. Moreover, redevelopment agencies in Nevada are designed to endow local officials with powers that are not legally vested in them by the voting public and can insulate the actions of local officials from public scrutiny.
AB26: Green Cars for State Fleet
Why We Oppose It: Nevada Policy recommends an amendment that strikes the preference for minimizing greenhouse gases. At all times the state should be seeking ways to act as a good steward of tax money by minimizing long-term costs to taxpayers and at times that might mean an electric vehicle. However, there are times when the two objectives (minimizing long-term costs and reducing greenhouse gases) are mutually exclusive. When this occurs, fiscal responsibility should be granted preference.
Why We Oppose It: Although Nevada Department of Education has improved the bill with their amendment, Nevada Policy must still remain in opposition due to 2 reasons: (1) the burdening of charter schools and university schools with unfunded mandates and regulations; and (2) the entire concept of classroom-size mandates, which a growing body of research on the national level is showing as among the least cost-effective means for improving student performance, with any gains being very small.
The left-leaning Center for American Progress has noted this as well, previously pointing out that teacher quality is the “most important in-school determinant” and “investing less in classroom reduction would free up resources that could be used to recruit and retain highly effective teachers.”
Nevada Policy agrees that CSR funds could be used more productively elsewhere, including teacher recruitment, particularly since there is data that class-size reduction dilutes teacher quality by ensuring a student is more likely to receive instruction from a less-effective teacher.
AB108: Interstate Nurses Licensing Compact
Why We Support It: Joining the interstate compact would be a positive move by recognizing out of state licensed medical professionals and enabling them to provide much needed care to our communities.
AB117: Domestic Terrorism Bill
Why We Oppose It: Nevada Policy has some concerns about the implementation of this legislation and innocent individuals or associations that might be caught up in government surveillance in violation of their constitutional rights.
SB9: Revises Provisions Relating to Education
Why We Oppose It: Nevada Policy is concerned that with the elimination of end-of-year finals, Nevada will lose an objective metric for accountability and teacher evaluation.
Update: After the hearing and discussion with education leaders, we have moved from a position of opposition to neutral.
SB10: Revises Provisions Relating to State Infrastructure Bank
Why We Oppose It: Major transparency concerns in this bill should raise red flags for government watchdogs. Depriving taxpayers of the right to know who is engaging with the State Infrastructure Bank is wrong and would lend itself to increased opportunity for corruption.
SB11: UAVs for Code Enforcement & Inspections
Why We Oppose It: The use of UAVs by local governments raises privacy concerns and potential 4th Amendment violations. The constitutionality of such legislation is in question.
SB24: Makes Office of Small Business Advocacy Permanent
Why We Support It: As one of the few positive government programs that exist, making the Office of Small Business Advocacy permanent would be a positive policy move for small businesses and upstart entrepreneurs in Nevada.
SB28: Expands Film Tax Credits
Why We Oppose It: Film Tax Credits should be eliminated. They are generally net-losing policy across the country. Nevada has much greater needs for tax dollars than to subsidize film producers.
SB47: Public Education Employee Working Conditions Task Force
Why We Oppose It: Section 2, which allows school districts to purchase housing for employees, is far outside the scope of the government’s proper role and does nothing to address the causes of the housing crisis. Rather than have the government step in and outbid private citizens in the marketplace- adding to the demand-side pressures on the housing market- the state should remove barriers that prevent more housing supply from entering the market. Nevada will not subsidize its way out of the house crisis.
SB49: Adopts California Car Emission Standards for Nevada
Why We Oppose It: Nevada should not cede its legal authority and responsibility to govern and regulate to California.
SB56: Commission on School Modernization
Why We Oppose It: Nevada Policy opposes the bill unless it is amended to include Governor appointments to the School Modernization Board.
SB65: School Board Certification Requirement
Why We Oppose It: SB65 places barriers on individuals who might want to pursue school board office in favor of incumbents. Currently, the requirements being sought in sections 2 & 3 to be imposed on citizens prior to being a candidate are mandatory for school board members when elected and they should remain as is. Imposing undue burdens to attain public office to protect incumbents is unbecoming of functioning democracies.
SB68: Tax Increase for Real Property Transfers
Why We Oppose It: Nevada does not need to raise taxes. We currently have a billion-dollar surplus. Moreover, the housing crisis would be more effectively addressed by enabling more supply to enter the market vis-à-vis deregulation and zoning reform as to allow market supply to meet demand.
Why We Oppose It: Nevada does not need to raise taxes. We currently have a billion dollar surplus.