Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers and advocates fault rush of last‑minute SB457 amendment as hearing opens on sine die
Summary
Supporters and critics clashed over the timing and process for the reprinted amendment to Senate Bill 457, with presenters saying the reprint delay forced the committee to hear the bill on sine die and opponents saying stakeholders were excluded and evidence was not provided.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee opened an informational hearing on Senate Bill 457 after committee staff said the bill was being presented on an amendment that was still being reprinted. Chair Miller opened the hearing and asked the committee secretary to take the role.
The timing set off immediate procedural complaints from several public defenders and civil‑liberties groups who said the amendment was circulated at the last minute and that key stakeholders were cut out of negotiations. John Puro of the Clark County Public Defender's Office said, "This bill was brought with no data, no evidence back, nothing like a b 2 36 happened." He and other opponents urged the committee not to advance major policy changes with limited review time.
Supporters, including the bill presenters, said the committee was working from the best available reprint and that some supporting materials could be supplied quickly. Jennifer Noble, presenting on behalf of the Nevada District Attorneys Association, told the committee she would provide data the committee requested: "I will get it to you right after this hearing. We can get it to you within 10 minutes." Senator Melanie Scheibel, who said she had been part of interim negotiations, described the amendment as a compromise crafted after stakeholder meetings in the Senate.
The ACLU's executive director, Atar Haseebullah, criticized the scheduling and last‑minute handling of substantive amendments: "It is a joke that this body, this committee, is forced to hear this at 5PM on sine die." Civil‑rights and defense organizations repeatedly told the panel that, because the amendment arrived late, they lacked time to vet language affecting Fourth Amendment protections, record sealing, and new corridor enforcement tools.
Why this matters: Committee members and outside groups warned that major criminal‑justice changes deserve deliberate vetting and fiscal analysis, and several witnesses urged the committee to delay or remove provisions that had not been fully negotiated. The committee proceeded with the hearing after a brief recess to allow members to review the newest amendment.
