Assembly Judiciary hears SB 30 to require name-based parole record requests; Supreme Court justice warns judges cannot volunteer opinions on pardons

The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Monday heard testimony on Senate Bill 30, which would require requesters to provide the name of an individual when seeking public records limited to parole orders.

Katie Fraker, executive secretary of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, told the committee the board already posts monthly parole actions and quarterly statistics online but sometimes receives broad requests for “copies of all grant or denial orders from the past 1 or 2 years” that are difficult to fulfill. “As the board conducts over 6,000 hearings per year, this is an extraordinary request,” Fraker said. She said SB 30 would require a name-based inquiry for those records and would help staff fulfill requests in a timely manner, reduce hours and overtime, and ensure requesters get the records they need. “This only applies to parole orders. Orders granting parole, orders denying parole, and parole violation hearing orders,” Fraker said. “All other documentation in the parole file is already considered confidential pursuant to statute.”

Linda Bell, a justice on the Nevada Supreme Court who also sits on the Board of Pardons, said a separate portion of the bill addresses the pardons process and related judicial ethics. “Judges are not permitted to voluntarily provide opinions in about cases,” Bell said, citing the standing committee on judicial ethics advisory opinion JE-11-008. She explained that while a judge may be summoned or subpoenaed to provide factual information, judges may not volunteer an opinion such as whether a person is a “great candidate” for a pardon because that would violate the ethics code.

Assembly members asked presenters to clarify distinctions between parole and pardon processes and whether the ethics guidance applies to both. Chris DiRico, chairman of the Board of Parole Commissioners, explained that the name-based records provision applies to the parole board, while Justice Bell said the ethical concern applies similarly in the pardons context when judges are solicited for opinions. Committee Chair Miller opened and closed public testimony; no members of the public spoke for or against SB 30 during the hybrid hearing.

The committee did not take a vote on SB 30 during this hearing. Presenters said the bill is intended to facilitate timely public records responses while preserving confidentiality established by statute and to clarify that judges should not voluntarily offer evaluative opinions to the pardons process absent a summons or subpoena.

The hearing record includes the presenters’ statements and the committee’s clarifying questions. The bill’s language and the advisory opinion JE-11-008 were referenced during testimony.

The committee will consider next steps in subsequent meetings; no final action on SB 30 occurred during this hearing.