Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Names Diacritics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada committee hears bill to allow diacritical marks in state records pending federal approval
Summary
Sponsors told the Assembly Growth and Infrastructure Committee Senate Bill 91 would let the DMV, state registrar and county health officers record diacritical marks in names if the Social Security Administration permits it; the DMV said implementation depends on vendor costs and federal funding.
The Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure heard testimony on Senate Bill 91 on the use of diacritical marks in government records, with the bill sponsor saying federal authorization and agency resources would control implementation.
Senator Fabian Donate, sponsor of SB 91, outlined the bill as a way to allow state agencies to record accents and other diacritical marks used in names once the Social Security Administration permits such characters in federal records. Leticia Delgado, presenting for the senator, told the committee the measure "establishes a prescriptive framework ensuring that if federal law or regulations permit the use of diacritical marks through the Social Security Administration, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles will be the first to...implement this change and then it'll be followed by the state registrar and county health officers." The bill conditions implementation on the DMV director confirming that sufficient resources exist.
The bill presentation emphasized language and cultural context. Delgado said diacritical marks are used in languages spoken by Nevadans, including Spanish, Vietnamese, French, Somali and Arabic, and noted the state ranks fourth in total Spanish speakers. Testifying in support, Noe Orozco of Make the Road Nevada said diacritical marks are "not just ornamental" and described name spelling as part of cultural identity.
The Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles testified they are neutral on SB 91 and described how the bill's amendment removed the DMV's fiscal note. Sean Seber of the DMV said the amendment ties implementation to federal authorization and sufficient resources, but that vendor costs remain uncertain: "We did have a large fiscal note on this bill originally. However, the bill sponsor amended the bill...which zeroed out our fiscal note. The weird part about this bill is...the DMV costs went away but the vendor costs remain." Seber added he looks forward to working with the sponsor on language tying the implementation date to the availability of federal funds.
Committee members asked about other states and federal compatibility. Sponsor Donate and his presenter explained some states have enacted their own rules allowing diacritics but that mismatch with Social Security Administration records can create inconsistent identity documents; the bill was written to avoid a bifurcated system by making state implementation contingent on federal action.
The hearing closed without a committee vote recorded on SB 91. Staff indicated follow-up work on funding language and on coordinating implementation timing with federal actions.
The hearing included neutral and supportive witnesses and no testimony in opposition was recorded.
Looking ahead, committee staff and the sponsor indicated they will continue to work with the DMV on clarifying the implementation trigger and funding approach.
