Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Judge Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly bill would extend judge‑protection statutes to tribal judges and court staff after witness recounted threats
Summary
Assembly Bill 150 would add tribal judges to state protections against threats and allow confidentiality of personal information; a tribal judge recounted a prior violent threat campaign that she said exposed gaps in Nevada law.
Assemblyman David Orantlicher on Feb. 20 presented Assembly Bill 150 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, proposing amendments to NRS 199.300 and related sections to extend existing protections for state and local judges to tribal judges and, potentially, tribal court staff.
The bill would explicitly add tribal judges to statutes that criminalize threats or intimidation toward judges, raise penalties for assault or battery against judges, allow confidentiality of personal contact information kept by public records custodians, and permit the use of an alternate address on a driver’s license or ID for covered tribal judges. Orentlicher said he intends to offer a conceptual amendment to remove language limiting protections to tribes located within state boundaries, to ensure judges who live outside Nevada but serve Nevada tribes are covered.
Patricia Lenzi, whose name she spelled for the record, described threats and harassment she said followed her service in multiple tribal courts. Lenzi, who identified herself as a member of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and chief judge for the Winnemucca Indian Colony Tribal Court, recounted a 2014 hearing in which a participant brought two pistols and carried out a violent attack on people present. She said tribal judges are often treated under state law the same as private citizens, which she said complicated requests for confidential license plates, law enforcement response and protective steps after threats and anonymous letters were sent to her and neighbors.
Lenzi described an effort she said targeted her with social media posts, mailed letters, and community campaigns asking tribes where she served to remove her. She told the committee that jurisdictional uncertainty — including whether incidents occurred on or off tribal land and which agency (tribal, county, state or federal) had responsibility — reduced protection for tribal judges and their families in her experience.
Orentlicher said the bill would address that gap by adding tribal judges to the list of protected public officials, increasing penalties for assault/battery when the victim is a judge, allowing confidentiality of personal information contained in public records, and enabling tribal judges to petition for alternate addresses on state identification. He also proposed expanding coverage to tribal court prosecutors, public defenders, court clerks and other court staff in a subsequent amendment.
Supporters who testified included Jennifer Noble of the Nevada District Attorneys Association, Sarah Adler of Silver State Government Relations (representing Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and Duck Valley Shoshone‑Paiute Tribe) and Brett Scolari of Strategies360 (representing Las Vegas Paiute Tribe and Reno‑Sparks Indian Colony). Jennifer Noble said the association “hopes you will consider this important piece of legislation.” Scolari and Adler urged the committee to adopt the bill and Orentlicher’s conceptual amendments.
No opposition testimony was offered during the hearing. Lenzi asked the committee to consider language that would not exclude tribal judges who are traveling for training or who serve tribes outside Nevada.
Orentlicher said he will circulate conceptual amendments to broaden coverage to court staff and to remove the in‑state location restriction; the committee closed the hearing after members thanked the presenters and supporters.
