Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the E Signature topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee reviews bill to modernize electronic-signature rules for court filings
Summary
AB 18 would replace requirements that court filings include an image of a filer’s handwritten signature with a reference to an electronic-signature definition used in Nevada’s e-filing rules; supporters said it would streamline filings while a neutral witness raised concerns about inmates who cannot e-file.
John McCormick, assistant court administrator for the Nevada Supreme Court, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that AB 18 updates Nevada law to accept modern electronic signatures for certain court filings.
The bill would replace statutory language that requires an image of a filer’s handwritten signature with a reference to the electronic-signature definition found in the Nevada electronic filing and conversion rules, McCormick said. “Electronic filing is an electronic identifier created by computer intended by the party, using it to have the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature,” he said.
Supporters said the change would streamline filings and improve court efficiency. Tayler Avery, manager of political affairs for the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber supports AB 18. “The chamber supports efforts to make the courts more easily accessible to the public,” Avery said, adding that allowing certain legal documents to be submitted with an electronic signature rather than an image will “streamline the submission process and make the courts more efficient.”
At least one neutral witness asked the committee to note a population that currently cannot use e-filing. Tonia Brown of Advocates for the Inmates and the Innocent said the bill as written does not apply to incarcerated people because inmates are not allowed to file electronically. Brown said she recently received a letter from an inmate who lost an appeal despite having signed paperwork through a law clerk; Brown said the court never received the filing. “This is something to consider down the road,” she said.
Committee members asked no follow-up questions about statutory drafting during the hearing. No opposition testimony was offered in person or by telephone, and the committee closed the hearing on AB 18 after receiving the record testimony.
The hearing record shows McCormick described changes to multiple statutory chapters to conform the signature definition to the e-filing rules; he said the bill amends provisions in juvenile procedure, criminal initiation (information/indictment), general criminal procedure, and child-abuse-and-neglect statute language to remove the image-of-signature requirement and reference the e-file rule definition instead. The committee did not take final action on the bill at the hearing.
