Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the E Filing Electronic Signature topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee hears cleanup bill to recognize modern electronic signatures in court filings
Summary
The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Assembly Bill 18, which updates Nevada law and court rules to recognize electronic signatures and modernize e-filing definitions; proponents said the change will streamline filings, and no vote was taken.
The Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee heard testimony Thursday on Assembly Bill 18, which would update statute and court rules to recognize modern electronic signatures for certain court filings.
The bill is a technical “cleanup” tied to the Supreme Court’s overhaul of its electronic filing rules, Katherine Stocks, State Court Administrator, told the committee. "It is an electronic identifier created by computer intended by the party using it to have the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature," Stocks said, explaining the bill replaces older requirements that treated a scanned image of a signature differently than an e-signature.
The bill’s sponsor and court staff told the committee the changes align Nevada’s statutes with the court’s revised e-filing rules and with national best practices for authentication. Stocks said individual case-management or e-filing systems will handle certifications and authentication. "All of the standards that we have within the electronic filing rules meet national best practices as is, and we intentionally have it in here that the requirements for that authentication, they amend as the national best practices amend," she said.
Taylor Avery, manager of political affairs for the Vegas Chamber, testified in support, saying the change will "streamline the submission process and make the courts more efficient" and will make the courts "more easily accessible to the public." There was no in-person or remote opposition during the hearing.
The committee heard brief technical presentation and public support and then closed the hearing. Committee members asked no substantive policy questions during the record; no vote was taken during the session on AB 18.
Background and next steps: Stocks told the committee AB 18 is tied to the court’s strategic plan to modernize out-of-date Supreme Court rules and that existing statute language contains older definitions of electronic signatures. The bill’s language replaces those older references; the committee did not take final action at the hearing and left the bill open for further consideration and possible amendment.
