Highlighting Lombardo’s Important Vetoes, Part II
(This is the second in a two-part series analyzing the best vetoes issued by Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo during the 2023 legislative session. To read about part one, click here.)
Among highlights of Gov. Joe Lombardo’s first legislative session were the record-breaking 75 vetoes he issued, reinforcing his commitment to serve as a check on the state legislature.
Below are details on more important vetoes Lombardo issued during the first half of 2023.
Assembly Bill 340 & Senate Bill 335 – California-Style Eviction Process
Assembly Bill 340
Introduced by: Assemblywoman Shondra Summers-Armstrong
Co-Sponsors: Assemblymen Tracy Brown-May, Bea Duran, Michelle Gorelow, Sabra Newby, David Orentlicher, Sarah Peters, Clara Thomas, Selena Torres, Howard Watts
Summary: AB340 sought to repeal and replace the current summary eviction process with new procedures for summary eviction in cases where tenants default on rent or are guilty of unlawful detainer excluding rent default. Key changes from the repealed procedures would have included requiring contents of written notice, filing requirements with the court and a timeline before the removal of a tenant. Under AB340, Landlords would have had to first apply by affidavit of complaint and then serve the tenant, instead of waiting for the tenant to file an affidavit. Landlords would have needed to provide proof of service and tenants would have seven days to respond after being served. If they didn’t, courts could have ordered an eviction without a hearing under certain conditions.
Final Vote: Assembly 28-14; Senate 13-7-1
Veto Override Eligible in 2025: Yes
Senate Bill 335
Introduced by: Senator James Ohrenschall
Summary: SB335 would have allowed for an eviction defense if the tenant being served with a notice to pay or surrender premises was awaiting a decision on rental assistance and laid out the process for tenants to request a stay and the criteria for it being granted. An approved stay would have lasted up to 60 days. If rental assistance would cover the default, landlords would have had to accept this payment. If rental assistance wouldn’t have covered the default or was denied, the court would have continued with the summary eviction process as per existing law.
Section 9.1 would have set up a parallel process, but it would have been contingent upon the enactment and approval of Assembly Bill No. 340. Lastly, the bill would have allowed justice courts to create a diversion program for eligible tenants facing summary eviction and listed factors the court could have considered when deciding if a tenant qualifies for this program. If a tenant were assigned to the program the eviction action would have been stayed for up to 60 days. If the tenant had paid the overdue rent or left the premises within this period, the eviction action would have been dismissed.
Final Vote: Assembly 27-14-1; Senate 12-9
Veto Override Eligible in 2025: Yes
In many regards, Assembly Bill 340 and Senate Bill 335 were inseparable due to the changes they would have brought about in the process to evict someone in Nevada, bringing it in alignment with a California-esqe system that has shown ineffective at protecting property rights.
Both bills would have added lengthy delays and burdensome requirements for owners to exercise autonomy over their own property. Nevada property owners dodged a bullet when Lombardo issued this pair of vetoes, but they aren’t out of the woods yet.
If allowed to become law next session when the opportunity to override the veto comes before the legislature, this pair of bills will make the rental market less efficient and require landlords to charge higher prices to account for nonperforming units.
At the same time, Nevada’s rental market will likely have to grapple with the unintended consequences of problem tenants being protected by the complexities of the proposed reforms, 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.
It’s imperative to remember that legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, can have far-reaching consequences that ripple through an entire community.
California’s housing system serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of over-regulating property rights. As we evaluate proposed changes, it’s essential to weigh both the intended benefits and potential pitfalls. Failing to do so risks replicating the very challenges that our neighboring state grapples with today.
Assembly Bill 175 – Union Information Sharing
Introduced by: Assemblywoman Natha Anderson, Assemblywoman Bea Duran, Assemblyman Max Carter, Senator Skip Daly
Co-Sponsors: Assemblywoman Venicia Considine and Assemblywoman Clara Thomas
Summary: Under AB175, school districts would have had to provide on a semiannual basis each recognized employee organization with details such as name, address, email, phone number, work contact information and location for every employee in the corresponding bargaining unit. Under the bill, if an employee had explicitly informed the school district that they did not wish their details to be shared with the employee organization, the district would have had to respect the request. However, the district would have still had to furnish this information to the Government Employee-Management Relations Board if it had been mandated by the board.
All the shared details would have been deemed confidential and not considered public records.
Final Vote: Assembly 28-14; Senate 13-7-1
Veto Override Eligible in 2025: Yes
Assembly Bill 172 was undoubtedly a contentious piece of legislation. It initially intended to require local governments to hand over the personal information of all employees to their respective unions without any avenue for an employee to object. Such an overreaching provision raised significant concerns, especially in the wake of the Janus Supreme Court decision, which granted public employees the right to choose whether or not to join a union.
While the bill may have been watered down by the time it landed on Lombardo’s desk, it still posed potential risks, particularly in the realm of education. Even if it ended up only targeting school districts and included an opt-out process for teachers, AB 172 was far from harmless. If implemented, it could have set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for the harassment of non-union members through the sharing of their personal information with unions eager to expand their membership.
As a right-to-work state, Nevada was unaffected by the aftermath of the Janus decision, but unions nationally have been grappling with the loss of compelled membership fees and have sought alternative means to bolster their ranks. AB 172, in its original form or even with its modifications, would have presented an opportunity for unions to exert coercive pressure and undermine the rights of public employees to choose whether or not to associate with a union.
In a time when unions are navigating new territory following the Janus decision, it is crucial to have leaders like Lombardo who stand firm against potential abuses of power. As we move forward, we must remain vigilant of what other attempts are conjured by government unions to harass non-union workers and undermine worker freedom.
Senate Bill 251 – Inflexible School Districts Bill
Introduced by: Senator Edgar Flores
Summary: SB251 sought to expand the scope of collective bargaining by including policies for the transfer and reassignment of school district employees who weren’t teachers. Specifically, the mandatory scope would have encompassed the policies related to the transfer and reassignment of employees in large school districts in two scenarios: during or as a reaction to a workforce reduction and in a surplus situation. This is described as an event where one or more employees’ services aren’t required at their present location due to specific reasons, either on a temporary or permanent basis.
Final Vote: Assembly 26-14-2; Senate 13-8
Veto Override Eligible in 2025: No
We dubbed Senate Bill 251 the inflexible school districts bill since it would’ve further hampered the labor decision-making process in government schools by expanding the scope of collective bargaining to include policies for the transfer and reassignment of non-teaching staff. SB251 would have made the labor market less flexible and adaptive, likely resulting in less optimal employment decisions and standardized contracts, which might not consider the unique requirements and dynamics of specific roles or individual precincts while further reducing the efficiency and responsiveness of our school districts in an ever-changing world. For example, in cases of workforce reductions or surplus situations, the mandated policies could have resulted in keeping less effective staff while letting go of more effective ones, based solely on seniority or other criteria determined by collective bargaining agreements.
This would have all come with the hallmark of government: increased costs. The broadening of collective bargaining rights leads to higher costs to taxpayers with rigid employment terms that would burden school districts, likely reducing the quality of service or resulting in reduced resources available for other educational priorities. Today, the biggest hindrances to the improvement of education in Nevada are CCEA and NSEA. We should be seeking ways to reduce the influence of these unions; not increasing it.
Senate Bill 395 – Don’t Invest in Nevada Bill
Introduced by: Senator Dina Neal
Summary: SB395 would have restricted the total number of units of residential real property that corporations, limited-liability companies and their affiliates could purchase in Nevada within a single calendar year to 1,000 units; and created a registry within the Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of State for corporations, limited-liability companies and their affiliates which bought or owned residential real estate in Nevada.
Final Vote: Assembly 28-14; Senate 14-6-1
Veto Override Eligible in 2025: Yes
Senate Bill 395, known in our office as the Don’t Invest in Nevada Bill, presented a controversial approach to address housing concerns by seeking to impose restrictions on housing investments in the state. The bill sought to limit corporations to purchasing a maximum of 1,000 units per calendar year, seemingly with the intention of curbing large-scale investment and promoting home ownership. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that SB395 would not have been the solution Nevada needs to tackle its housing challenges.
While the proposed limit might seem substantial at first glance, it becomes clear the negative impact SB395 would have had on Nevada’s reputation as a business-friendly state. The average apartment complex, as reported by the Nevada Housing Division in 2012, comprises approximately 200 units. Thus, the restriction imposed by SB395 could have significantly hindered large entities from making large investments in Nevada’s housing market. While it might be the “populist in vogue” position to hate entities such as Blackrock, we must recognize why they view it as a promising opportunity. Their own assessments point to issues such as limited new housing construction and regulatory constraints as factors artificially constraining the housing market and leading to rising prices.
Rather than restricting investment, a more effective approach could be to focus on removing barriers to construction, allowing the free market to operate efficiently and allocate resources where they are most needed. Unnecessary bureaucratic measures, such as the creation of a registry and additional deed recording requirements, would not only increase administrative overhead but also potentially raise costs for buyers, sellers, and taxpayers.
Finally, if Lombardo’s veto is overridden by the legislature in 2025, the repercussions of SB395 could reverberate through the housing market, leading to decreased demand and a potential decrease in property values. Nevada homeowners might face diminished equity in their homes as a result of reduced corporate investments. Corporate investments in real estate play a vital role in stimulating job creation, including construction, property management and maintenance, while also contributing to increased tax revenue and community development.
While the aim of addressing housing affordability and encouraging home ownership is commendable, Senate Bill 395’s goal of limiting corporate investments could have had unintended consequences and hindered Nevada’s economic growth. A more balanced and efficient solution would involve removing obstacles to construction and embracing the power of free markets to address the state’s housing challenges effectively.
Conclusion
While the top 10 vetoes highlighted above undoubtedly highlight Lombardo’s dedication to safeguarding liberty and making principled decisions, it’s essential to recognize that they constitute only 13 percent of the record-breaking 75 vetoes he issued during his first session.
As we look ahead to the future, 43 of those vetoed bills will resurface in the next legislative session, set for 2025, presenting another critical battleground for the protection of Nevadans’ interests.
The fate of these bills will be influenced by the outcome of the upcoming contentious election next fall in 2024. Voters will have the opportunity to voice their support for the governor’s stance on limited government intervention, individual freedom and responsible fiscal policies.
The decision to uphold these vetoes will be pivotal in shaping Nevada’s trajectory, determining whether the Nevada Way is restored that prioritizes free markets, economic growth and the well-being of its citizens.
Learn more about this year’s legislative session by downloading the FREE Legislative Scorecard and Report.