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 create a roadmap to address overspending.
AB6: Expansion of Patient Protection Commission Powers and Duties
Why We Oppose It: Government interference in the healthcare market has gotten us 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.
AB27: Contractor License Parity
Why We Oppose It: Requiring a general building contractor who provides management and counseling services on a construction project to have an active license in each classification or sub-classification required for the prime contractor will lead to increased costs, limited business opportunities for smaller firms, inefficient use of resources through unnecessary expertise overlap, and more administrative burden.
Update 4/13: Amendments brought forward improve the bill but by the boards own admission during the hearing, there have been no problems associated with the current system as its been operating. It is a problem in search of a solution.
AB41: Establishes the Nevada Innovation Account
Why We Oppose It: State-directed economic development is inefficient. When production decisions are shaped by politicians instead of market forces – i.e., consumer decisions – society’s capital stock is likely to be invested in ways that serve the best interests of politicians, not consumers.
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 two 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.
AB71: Requires Interim Environmental Justice Study
Why We Oppose It: AB 71 will likely fail to be thorough, unbiased or an effective study on environmental justice, leading to misallocation of resources and misguided policy recommendations that, while well-intentioned, will likely produce negative outcomes, such as market distortions, reduced economic growth or limited individual freedom.
AB77: Creating the Office of Entrepreneurship
Why We Oppose It: State-directed economic development is inefficient. When production decisions are shaped by politicians instead of market forces – i.e., consumer decisions – society’s capital stock is likely to be invested in ways that serve the best interests of politicians, not consumers.
Why We Support It: There is overwhelming support among Nevadans to require voters to produce photo identification before casting a ballot. This would restore confidence in our elections and push back against narratives of voter fraud.
Why We Support It: Consolidating the legislative and executive powers in the hands of one person is the very definition of tyranny. It was the normal state of affairs during the pandemic under Governor Sisolak, who asserted the power to regulate everything from the number of family members you can spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with, to what kinds of businesses that are permitted to stay open and even the manner in which churches can operate. Because the Nevada Constitution prohibits the Executive Branch from exercising legislative functions, the vast majority of Governor Sisolak’s Executive Orders have been unlawful edicts. Unfortunately, the ability to mount legal challenges is extremely costly and time-consuming, which has allowed these edicts to act as de facto laws, even when they lacked legitimate authority. AB103 would apply check and balances to emergency powers of governors moving forward by requiring them to return to the people’s representatives, the legislature, for review.
Why We Support It: AB 106 is a common sense reform that simply updates the statue regarding unlicensed work for inflation.
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.
AB149: Office of Inspector General
Why We Support It: Adding an inspector general in Nevada could provide several benefits to the state, particularly in terms of accountability, transparency and efficiency in government operations.
hr />
AB160: Automatic Sealing of Eligible Criminal Convictions
Why We Support It: AB160 would enact automatic sealing of criminal records to promote rehabilitation, reintegration, and fairness for individuals with past convictions or eligible charges. By sealing eligible records, individuals can gain better access to employment, housing, and educational opportunities, reducing the chances of recidivism.
AB172: Union Members Information Sharing
Why We Oppose It: AB172 warrants privacy concerns and risks union harassment of workers. The default should be opt-in information sharing with a union, not opt-out.
AB182: Requires Bachelor’s for Alternative Teacher Licensing Route
Why We Oppose It: Rather than imposing more barriers during a teacher shortage, Nevada should allow prospective teachers to test out of coursework requirements and recognized out-of-state licenses. The alternative certification process created by SB 315 (2011) can still take two full years for prospective teachers to complete. For talented, mid-career professionals seeking to transfer into the classroom, this barrier to entry is still needlessly onerous. Knowledgeable professionals should be able to have coursework requirements waived if they can achieve a reasonable score on a subject-matter test. Recognize teaching credentials gained in any other state. While Nevada has reciprocity agreements to recognize teaching credentials gained by individuals in certain other states, credentials gained in several states are not recognized by Nevada. A majority of states recognize licensure gained anywhere in the United States. Nevada should as well.
AB184: Creates the Clean Trucks and Buses Incentive Program
Why We Oppose It: By enacting assembly Bill 184, the government would cause market distortions as artificial demand for these vehicles take hold. This could lead to inefficiencies and misallocation of resources, as some buyers might choose to purchase clean vehicles only because of the incentives, and not because they are the best or most economical choice. Through financial incentives for clean trucks and buses, the government would be picking winners and losers in the market, which could stifle innovation and competition among vehicle manufacturers.
AB198: Telehealth Uniform Bill
Why We Support It: The Uniform Telehealth Act will reduce regulatory barriers, promote competition and innovation, enhance consumer choice, expand access to care, and lower healthcare costs through market-driven solutions.
Update 4/20: The amendment cleared up language that would have led to part-time employees getting dispropotational credit.
AB235: Prevailing Wage for Public Works
Why We Oppose It: Nevada law requires governments to pay wildly inflated labor costs on public works projects, which are known as “prevailing wage” rates. This practice takes tens of millions of dollars out of the classroom each year, according to the fiscal notes submitted by Nevada school districts.
When Nevada Policy first analyzed the cost of these so-called prevailing wage rates, we found that they cost taxpayers an additional $1 billion in 2009 and 2010. At that time, the prevailing wage rate was, on average, 45 percent higher than the actual market rate.
AB250: Price Control Prescriptions
Why We Oppose It: AB250, while well-intentioned, will inadvertently stifle innovation and limit patient access to novel and life-saving therapies. By enforcing a “maximum fair price”, it will reduce incentives for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development of new treatments, particularly for rare or complex conditions. Additionally, the bill may lead to unintended consequences such as drug shortages, as manufacturers may prioritize distribution to regions with more favorable pricing structures. Furthermore, a one-size-fits-all approach to drug pricing may not account for the diverse costs and risks associated with drug development, which could ultimately hinder the availability of new and effective therapies for patients in need. The only “fair price” is the market price. Furthermore, prices act as signals and play a crucial role in market economies by efficiently allocating resources, incentivizing production, reflecting consumer preferences, rationing scarce goods, and encouraging innovation. They serve as information carriers that guide producers to create products aligned with consumer needs, while promoting innovation and growth. Essentially, price signals facilitate the optimal functioning of markets by enabling the effective flow of information and resource distribution.
Why We Support It: Assembly Bill 258 which aims to protect the confidentiality of personal information related to donors, members, or volunteers of nonprofit organizations held by governmental agencies. This crucial legislation seeks to codify elements of the 6-3 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021) , thereby ensuring that individuals will not be subjected to political intimidation or harassment for exercising their First Amendment rights amendment rights. The Supreme Court has recognized and protected the rights of donors and organizations to engage in political speech and associate with others in advancing their shared beliefs since National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 where it unanimously ruled that the freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the “advancement of beliefs and ideas” is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that obtaining the names of an association’s membership would likely interfere with the free association of its members to practice their first amendment rights.
In Americans for Prosperity v Bonta, affirmed that Americans have a right to anonymously financially support charities and political nonprofits. AB258 will enshrine this vital protection to ensure donors and volunteers are protected against retaliation, harassment, and violence for their political speech. Anonymous political speech has always been a part of American history. From Thomas Paine initially publishing Common Sense anonymously, and The Federalist Papers written under the pseudonym “Publius”, there is no doubt our Founding Fathers understood giving to the “wrong” political cause can have dire social consequences.
Why We Oppose It: Nevada Policy opposes this bill unless it is amended to include language that in a situation where emissions and total costs over service life are at odds, reducing total costs to taxpayers overtime is prioritized. These requirements interfere with the decision-making process in the market, as it would force state entities to prioritize specific attributes rather than allowing them to make choices based on their specific needs and budget constraints.
Furthermore, by mandating preferences for certain types of automobiles and fuels, the bill effectively picks winners and losers in the automotive and fuel industries. The bill’s requirements might not always lead to the most cost-effective or efficient outcomes. For example, a lower-emission vehicle might have higher upfront costs or other drawbacks that outweigh its environmental benefits. By imposing these requirements, the government could inadvertently create inefficiencies in the procurement process.
AB278: PERS Nevada Based Investments
Why We’re Neutral: AB278 risks getting PERS into high-risk or crony-based private equities. We advise caution.
AB301: Revises Provisions Relating to Public Employees
Why We Oppose It: AB301 would add new undue burdens on PERS unless the conclusive-presumption for heart and lung provisions are repealed. Officers who contract diseases in the course of duty deserve to receive compensation from their employer and to receive medical treatment. However, Nevada’s conclusive-presumption statutes make a mockery of that legitimate obligation by entitling retirees who contract disease as a result of poor diet, lack of exercise or other unhealthy lifestyles to the same benefits. Nevada should cap the manifestation period to five years. The open-ended nature of heart and lung liabilities makes it nearly impossible for local governments to accurately account for these liabilities. Forty-nine states limit the manifestation period. Nevada should as well.
AB312: Creates the Commission on Environmental Justice
Why We Oppose It: Nevada Policy opposes AB312 since it will without a doubt lead to increased bureaucracy and regulations while hindering market efficiency and imposing costs on businesses. By requiring agencies to prepare environmental justice impact statements, AB312’s mandates will interfere with the autonomy of businesses and distort market incentives. By allowing the public to file petitions objecting to regulations if environmental justice impact statements are deemed “inadequate”, AB312 will open the door to delays, legal challenges, and increased costs for businesses and taxpayers, which could have unintended (or intended) negative consequences on the economy and job creation. AB 312 would require agencies to analyze whether a proposed regulation is likely to impose a direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impact on historically underserved communities. These sections are vague and subjective, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretations and applications of the law.
Lastly, the bill empowers the Commission on Environmental Justice to review and provide feedback on environmental justice impact statements, potentially influencing the adoption of regulations. This opens the door for government overreach, as it could lead to regulatory capture or the politicization of regulatory processes, ultimately distorting market outcomes.
AB351: Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP)
Why We Oppose It: In other states we see Deferred Retirement Option Programs (DROP) allowing police and fire fighters to “retire” on paper, and then continue working for up to 6 years, during which they receive full pay and benefits, and their annual pension amount gets deposited into an interest-bearing account, which then gets paid out when they actually do retire. LA has a program just like this, which is why their retirees can get up to $1,000,000 when they retire.
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 Fourth Amendment violations. The constitutionality of such legislation is in question.
Update 4/19: After amendments and discussions with the sponsors, our concerns have been eliminated.
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 its housing 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 gubernatorial 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 Support It: SB92 establishes and simplifies the licensing process for “street vendors,” providing them with multiple options to achieve compliance while maintaining their freedom to operate in public spaces improving economic freedom and opportunity.
Why We Oppose It: Nevada does not need to raise taxes. We currently have a billion-dollar surplus.
SB97: Physical Therapy Compact
Why We Support It: Joining the Physical Therapy Licensure Compact would promote professional mobility and enhance access to physical therapy services by allowing licensed physical therapists and physical therapist assistants from other member states to practice in Nevada and vice versa. This would help address potential workforce shortages, improve patient care and reduce administrative burdens for practitioners.
SB123: Ombudsmen of Unemployment
Why We Support It: Creating the Office of the Ombudsman for Unemployment Benefits in Nevada would provide essential advocacy and support for individuals navigating the unemployment benefits system, enhance efficiency by identifying and addressing systemic issues, and increase transparency through monitoring and reporting. The ombudsman would also serve as a neutral party for complaint resolution, helping to build public trust in the administration of unemployment benefits and ensuring a more equitable experience for claimants.
SB130 and SB136: Emergency Powers Reform
Why We Support It: Consolidating the legislative and executive powers in the hands of one person is the very definition of tyranny. It was the normal state of affairs during the pandemic under Governor Sisolak, who asserted the power to regulate everything from the number of family members you can spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with, to what kinds of businesses that are permitted to stay open and even the manner in which churches can operate. Because the Nevada Constitution prohibits the Executive Branch from exercising legislative functions, the vast majority of Governor Sisolak’s Executive Orders have been unlawful edicts. Unfortunately, the ability to mount legal challenges is extremely costly and time-consuming, which has allowed these edicts to act as de facto laws, even when they lacked legitimate authority. SB136 would apply check and balances to emergency powers of governors moving forward by requiring them to return to the people’s representatives, the legislature, for review.
SB166: Supervisor LEO Collective Bargaining Unit
Why We Oppose It: Public employee collective bargaining leads to increased government spending and fiscal strain due to higher wages and benefits, resulting in higher taxes or reduced public services. Additionally, it limits managerial flexibility, making it difficult for government agencies to adapt to changing circumstances and implement necessary reforms for improved efficiency and effectiveness.
Why We’re Neutral: Because SB233 is narrowly tailored to businesses “primarily engaged in renting or leasing heavy equipment” and by nature, that equipment is inventory rather than capital equipment and shouldn’t be taxed as capital equipment, SB233 improves the current tax structure. Basic interpretation of GAAP should imply this is the correct tax treatment for rental equipment.
Update 5/15: Because SB233 is narrowly tailored to businesses “primarily engaged in renting or leasing heavy equipment” and by nature, that equipment is inventory rather than capital equipment and shouldn’t be taxed as capital equipment, SB233 improves the current tax structure. Basic interpretation of GAAP should imply this is the correct tax treatment for rental equipment.
SB278: Child Care MBT Tax Credit
Why We’re Neutral: Nevada Policy could support the bill if it was amended to remove all the conditions employers would need to prove and simplified to be a tax credit against the MBT credit for providing any child care benefit.
SB292: Revises Provisions Relating to School Administrators
Why We Support It: Nevada Policy would support expanding the principles in SB292 to teachers as well.
SB305: Retirement Savings Program for Private Sector Employees
*In Active Discussion with Sponsors. Rating Subject to Change*
Why We Oppose It: Nevada Policy opposes this legislation unless amended away from an opt-out program to an opt in. As introduced, SB305 has a presumption of participation by all private-sector employees. Employees can opt out, but they must periodically re-affirm this opt-out or they will forcibly have their wages withheld. If this language is changed to an opt-in, our opposition would be dropped.
Why We Oppose It: Sec. 14 introduces a new business tax.
SB335: California Style Eviction Process
Why We Oppose It: SB335 will make the rental market less efficient and requires landlords to charge higher prices to account for nonperforming units. SB335 may also lead to unintended consequences of protecting problem tenants, making it more difficult for landlords to evict those who engage in disruptive or illegal behavior. This can negatively affect the living environment and safety for other tenants.
SB360: Licensing and Regulation of Digital Financial Asset Businesses
Why We Oppose It: SB360 is broad and heavy-handed, including licensing and regulation of games that sell in-game upgrades
SB444: Excise Tax on Live Entertainment
Why We’re Neutral About It: Due to amendments added to lower the rate in addition to broadening the base tax, we have moved from oppose to neutral. We cannot support since the LET should be repealed and rolled into the sales tax.