Nevada committee hears fiscal and policy case for 'second look' parole reviews in AB 91

Assembly members and witnesses on the Assembly Ways and Means Committee heard testimony on Assembly Bill 91 on a proposal to allow discretionary “second look” parole reviews for people who have served a minimum of 10 years, including those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

Supporters told the committee the bill could save the state money and provide a path for long‑incarcerated people to seek supervised release. Assemblymember Erica Roth, who introduced the fiscal presentation, said an NDOC fiscal note filed Feb. 11, 2025, was amended to zero after policy changes to clarify the bill "allow[s] for reviews but not mandate any parole hearings." Chair Miller presented a conceptual amendment to expand eligibility to some people serving life without parole while preserving parole standards.

Why it matters: Committee members focused on fiscal impacts and public safety safeguards. Witnesses from nonprofits, advocacy groups and formerly incarcerated people urged the committee to expand eligibility and highlighted potential savings; NDOC and Department of Public Safety representatives described limits in forecasting how many would be granted parole and where supervision costs would fall.

Most important facts: The bill would permit—not compel—parole review eligibility after a minimum of 10 years served, and would not apply to people sentenced to death. Assemblymember Miller said parole commissioners would still evaluate candidates "just like any other person." Don Southworth, chief of offender management for the Nevada Department of Corrections, said "anytime you talk about reducing offender populations in prisons, it's gonna be a cost savings," but added the agency cannot precisely predict the magnitude.

Public testimony skewed strongly in support. Dozens of callers and in‑room witnesses endorsed the bill as both humane and fiscally responsible: Tonia Brown of "advocates for the inmates and the innocent" said the bill could correct overly long sentences; Eden Kinlock (FAM) cited NDOC estimates that 276 people could be granted parole immediately on the bill’s effective date with a projected savings "of up to $1,090,000 in fiscal year 26 and $1,200,000 in fiscal year 27." Kinlock added that including the state's 555 people serving life without parole could yield additional inmate‑driven savings because NDOC estimates an annual inmate‑driven cost of about $3,600 per person.

NDOC clarified operational concerns: Southworth said the department is rapidly approaching bed capacity and that population relief would help staff and public safety; he also said forecasts for beds or out‑of‑state placements are uncertain and depend on court outcomes. Vice Chair Backus asked whether potential parole grants would shift costs from NDOC to Parole and Probation; Roth and others replied that while some supervision costs could increase the latter agency’s workload, the correctional housing costs would be reduced by releases.

Outcome and next steps: The hearing record shows a sponsor‑driven amendment was discussed to add life‑without‑parole eligibility and preserve parole review standards. There was no committee vote recorded at the hearing; the committee closed the hearing and moved to the next bill.

Ending: Supporters urged the committee to advance AB 91 as a fiscally prudent measure that preserves public safety review. NDOC and Parole and Probation representatives asked for clarity on scope and implementation as the bill proceeds.