SB 95: bill to restore right to demand court-martial for Nevada National Guard members draws broad support and some implementation concerns

Sen. Lisa Krasner presented Senate Bill 95, which would allow an accused service member of the Nevada National Guard to demand a trial by court-martial instead of accepting nonjudicial punishment.

Nut graf: Supporters said the change restores due-process protections to guardsmen and aligns state practice with federal military justice and other states; the state judge advocate warned of resource constraints and potential readiness impacts if the change is implemented without additional personnel or funding.

Krasner framed the bill around due process and the experience of Allison ("Allison Bailey") whose family and advocates testified that she was denied the option of a court-martial under current Nevada practice. "SB 95 … provides an accused serviceman or service woman of the Nevada National Guard with the right to demand a trial by court martial or accept a non judicial punishment," Krasner said.

Multiple veterans, family members and military attorneys supported the bill. Colin Kavanaugh (brother of Allison Bailey) and Felicia Kavanaugh (Allison's mother) described Allison’s case and urged passage; Felicia Kavanaugh told the committee that Allison "was denied this fundamental right." Christopher Tinsman, who served as a military attorney, said SB 95 would "restore the due process rights of soldiers and airmen" and align Nevada practice with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Assemblyman Ken Gray and veterans organizations including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Disabled American Veterans testified in support. Major-General David Baldwin (ret.) provided a letter urging the change and arguing that cost to the state would be negligible because most court-martial resources can be sourced federally or borrowed from other states.

The Nevada National Guard’s state judge advocate, Col. Kevin Remus, testified as neutral and laid out implementation concerns. He said the Guard has no full-time uniformed attorneys and that available attorneys perform civilian jobs or are detailed from county offices. "We are already stretched thin with all of our soldier training requirements, as well as our current JAG duties," Remus said, and he warned that initial implementation could take two to three years to field a qualified military judge and that nonjudicial punishment serves a rehabilitative role.

Sponsor Krasner told the committee she had just received a Legislative Counsel Bureau fiscal analysis indicating a $0 fiscal note; earlier in the hearing the Office of the Military had provided an estimate that the change could have a fiscal impact but also acknowledged uncertainty.

Ending: After extensive testimony for support and a neutral implementation briefing from the Guard’s judge advocate, the committee closed the record. No committee vote was recorded in the hearing transcript.