Yeager says bill on court access aims to make high-profile Carson City cases easier to view online

Carson City — Assembly Bill 490, presented March 12 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee by Speaker Steve Yeager (Assembly District 9), would change how certain cases currently assigned by statute to the First Judicial District are treated, with the goal of improving public access to documents and hearings.

The bill’s sponsor said the measure addresses limited electronic access in the First Judicial District and other courts that lack online filing and livestreamed hearings. "This bill is about public access to our state's most important court cases," Yeager said, telling the committee that some of the most consequential matters — including petition initiatives and election challenges — are difficult for the public and press to follow because documents and hearings are not easily available online.

Under the bill’s text as explained by the sponsor, statutory references to "the first judicial district" would instead be interpreted to include a "qualified district court," defined in the bill as a court that has three or more district judges, an electronic filing, storage and reproduction process, and electronic access to its documents and hearings. Yeager said the change would allow such statutorily listed cases to be handled in other courts that meet those technical requirements.

Committee members asked for clarifications on scope and venue. Assemblymember Ordlicker asked whether ordinary criminal or civil cases that arise in the First Judicial District would be swept into other courts; Yeager replied that the bill is not intended to move cases that arise in Carson City by geographical origin. "If jurisdiction is in the first judicial district court because a civil or criminal case that's not otherwise specified by statute originates here ... that would stay the same," he told the committee.

Assemblymember Cole asked for a list of statutes that currently reference the First Judicial District; Yeager said he would provide that list, noting he had found "about 16 to 18 hits" in Nepvada Revised Statutes referencing the First Judicial District and that many listed items are specialized matters such as final decisions by the secretary of state, the Department of Transportation, or the commissioner of insurance.

Members also raised concerns about venue shopping and convenience. Assemblymember Gray asked whether litigants could manipulate venue under the bill; Yeager said litigants typically consider venue but stressed that the bill was aimed at improving access for the public and the press, not to create a venue advantage. Yeager noted only three judicial districts currently meet the bill’s 3-judge threshold — Clark (8th), Washoe (2nd), and the 4th (Elko) — and said the First Judicial District currently has two judges, so it would not qualify unless it gained a third judge.

The committee opened the hearing for public testimony and received no callers in support, opposition or neutral testimony. Yeager offered no final comments and the committee closed the hearing.

No committee vote or floor recommendation was recorded during the hearing; the measure will proceed according to the committee’s normal scheduling rules.