Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to clarify oaths and affirmations would codify notaries’ ability to administer oral and written oaths; courts and reporters raised questions
Summary
Assembly Bill 189 would modernize Nevada law to recognize oral and written oaths and affirmations and clarify that notaries may administer them in a range of settings. Sponsors said the measure codifies existing practice; some senators questioned overlap with court-reporting procedures and sought legal guidance.
Assemblymember Greg Koenig presented Assembly Bill 189, a statutory cleanup bill that would modernize and clarify Nevada law on oaths and affirmations. Koenig and co-presenter Jason Sanderson said the bill recognizes both oath (religious) and affirmation (secular) declarations, permits those declarations to be made orally, in writing or by alternative communications, and clarifies notaries’ authority to administer oaths.
Proponents said the bill is intended to ensure inclusivity for people of diverse beliefs and abilities and to codify practices that are already in use. Sanderson told the committee the bill “recognizes and respects the diversity of belief systems” and allows for accommodations, including alternative communication methods for people with disabilities.
Several senators asked whether the bill would unintentionally intrude on established roles performed by court reporters, particularly for deposition and courtroom testimony where transcripts or recordings are produced. Senator Daley and Senator Krasner questioned whether the change would allow notaries to supplant court reporters or permit informal oral affirmations to be used in lieu of recorded transcripts. Sponsors said the intent was not to expand recording powers or to replace court reporters, but to clarify notaries’ ability to administer oaths and affirmations; they offered to work with legal counsel to ensure the bill does not conflict with court‑reporting statutes.
Why it matters: sponsors and supporters said the bill removes ambiguity, affirms equal treatment for people who choose affirmations rather than religious oaths, and updates statute for oral and alternative communications. Some senators warned that clarifying notaries’ authority for oral administration could create uncertainty for legal proceedings where formal transcript records are needed.
Ending: The committee asked staff to confirm existing practice and to advise whether the bill might conflict with court‑reporting or deposition rules; proponents said they would consult counsel and return with clarifications as needed.
