Bill would deem Clark County court marshals county employees, prompting safety, labor and separation‑of‑powers debate

Sen. Melanie Scheibel presented Senate Bill 450 before the Assembly Judiciary Committee, saying the bill’s aim is to clarify who employs and supervises deputy marshals and bailiffs in Clark County courts. “The purpose of SB 4 50 is to clarify that confusion and specify … that the bailiff or the deputy marshal is a local government employee of the county,” Scheibel said during her presentation.

Proponents — including Randy Hawkes, president of the Clark County Deputy Marshals Association and an active deputy marshal — said the bill would restore clear executive‑branch oversight and uniform safety protocols. Hawkes said existing arrangements, which he traced to a 2007 law change (AB139), left marshals in an ambiguous status: hired and paid through county processes but subject to ad hoc administrative control by judges. “We are county employees. It always has been Clark County,” Hawkes told the committee, summarizing the historical argument presented in testimony.

Scheibel and Hawkes described practical problems they link to that ambiguity: inconsistent discipline and grievance routes, limits on collective bargaining, difficulty reallocating personnel to cover courtrooms, and uncertainty about who may set and enforce uniform safety protocols across facilities. SB450 would make several changes: deem marshals county employees of Clark County, clarify that marshals are assigned to particular courtrooms but remain county employees, remove an antiquated requirement that marshals post a bond, and expressly permit certain service‑of‑process duties and attendance on prospective jurors.

Opponents included Clark County representatives and several judges. Clark County attorney Alex Ortiz testified that the county believes deputy marshals are already court employees and that SB450 would introduce “ambiguity into what has been a clear employment structure.” Ortiz warned that directing county commissioners to take hiring steps in public meetings would be an inappropriate practice for law‑enforcement hiring. Judge Jessica Goody, vice president of the Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction, said the bill “gets rid of my ability to select, manage, and supervise my marshal” and warned about potential public‑safety consequences if supervision is unclear.

Committee members pressed both sides on specifics: who currently signs paychecks and handles discipline, what changed after AB139 in 2007, the role of a February 2022 memorandum of understanding that placed some payroll on the Eighth Judicial District Court, and whether existing court rules (such as court rule 1.53) already address collective‑bargaining recognition. Witnesses and the sponsor repeatedly offered to work with the county and the courts to resolve particular drafting issues; Hawkes and Scheibel emphasized the proposal should not remove a judge’s ability to have trust in the marshal assigned to their courtroom.

The hearing record shows active disagreement about the right institutional model for courtroom security and labor relations; SB450’s supporters described it as a first step toward clearer county oversight and collective bargaining, while county and judicial opponents described it as unnecessary or potentially disruptive to judicial independence and courthouse safety. The sponsor invited further negotiation with opponents before the committee acts on the bill.