Bill would codify and expand language-access services in Nevada elections, including website translations, hotline interpretation and ASL access

All Voting is Local Action Nevada presented Assembly Bill 367 (referred to in committee as AB 3 67), an interim-committee bill to expand and codify language-access resources for voters who do not primarily speak English and for voters with hearing or vision disabilities.

The bill would codify a Secretary of State hotline that provides telephonic interpretation and translation for voting-related questions in more than 200 languages (including ASL via video interpretation), require that the Secretary of State maintain website translation and information in a minimum of the seven most common non-English languages in Nevada, authorize use of personal devices in polling places to access interpretation services for deaf and hard-of-hearing voters, mandate bilingual statewide communications in English and Spanish, and fund a full-time language-access coordinator in the Secretary of State’s office.

Proponents said Nevada’s diversity and census data — including large Spanish and Tagalog-speaking communities and significant populations of Asian American and Pacific Islander and Hispanic voters — make the changes necessary to ensure equal access to elections. Witnesses cited Section 203 and Section 208 of the federal Voting Rights Act as the existing federal baseline; proponents said AB 367 would close gaps for language-access needs not covered by federal thresholds and would preserve services the Secretary of State has already provided voluntarily.

Support came from a broad coalition of voting-rights, immigrant-rights, disability-rights and civic organizations. The Nevada Commission for Persons who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing testified in favor, noting that American Sign Language is the primary language for many deaf voters and that access to ASL interpretation is essential for meaningful participation.

Opposition commenters argued the measure could be costly and urged more investment in English-language instruction as an alternative. Testimony cited fiscal-estimate concerns and the ongoing operational cost of maintaining translations, a toll-free line and device-access services; opponents also warned against potential overreach. Some commenters said they prefer resources be focused on English-language acquisition rather than broad translation funding.

The committee received the presentation and testimony and did not take a final vote during the hearing.