Apr 052021
EXPLANATION OF AB376 has the deceptive name of “Keep Nevada Working Act”. It has nothing to do with Nevadans working, but is all about prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws creating Nevada as a Sanctuary State. A state or local law enforcement agency SHALL NOT inquire into or collect information relating to the immigration or citizenship status of a person or the place of birth of the person…and SHALL NOT provide federal immigration authorities with…information. State or local law enforcement, before making an inquiry, “warn the person that any statement made about his or her immigration or citizenship status or place of birth may be shared with federal immigration authorities and possibly used in federal proceeding for deportation or removal of the person,” etc.
         State or local law enforcement shall not detain a person solely for determining immigration status unless accompanied by a warrant which is based upon probable cause issued by a federal judge or magistrate because the person has committed a crime. State and local law enforcement SHALL NOT permit a federal immigration authority to interview a person about a noncriminal matter while the person is in custody.
Prohibits any agency to use funds, facilities, property, equipment or personnel to investigate, enforce, cooperate with or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal registration or program or any other law, rule or policy that targets people based on ..immigration status or citizenship.
        AB376 sets up the “Keep Nevada Working Task Force” within the Office for New Americans (created last session to help illegal immigrants). The Task Force will be made up of illegal alien friendlies including: Immigrant advocacy groups, labor organizations, a legal interest of immigrants, faith based non-profit, an advocacy group which focuses on immigration and criminal justice, and others. The Task Force is to develop strategies with private sector business, labor organizations and immigrant advocacy groups to strengthen industries across the state, strengthening career pathways for illegals, improve the ability of this sate to attract and retain immigrant business owners. Your tax dollars at work.
        The Preamble of the bill claims that “immigrants” make up 19 percent of the population accounting for one in every four workers. AB376 is in recognition of the significant contributions of immigrants (illegals) to the overall prosperity and strength of this State, creating a compelling interest in ensuring that this State remains a place where the rights and dignity of all residents (including illegal immigrants) are protected.
It says school & campus police “shall not inquire into or collect information concerning the immigration or citizenship status of a person; or place of birth of a person or provide information.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used one or more welfare programs…and there is a child present in 86% of illegal immigrant households using welfare, and this is the primary way that these household access programs.” http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households
“FAIR estimates that the annual fiscal burden on Nevada taxpayers associated with illegal immigration to be about $630 million (in 2008). This equates to an annual average cost of about $763 per native-born headed household in the state. In addition, there is a cost to the state’s economy resulting from remittances sent abroad that amounted to $618 million in 2006. From 2004 to 2006 remittance flow increased 38%. Estimated taxes collected from the illegal alien population are about $216 million.”
Apr 052021
Kill AB99: The Committee Vote is Tuesday at 9pm
AB99 has been hijacked by the Democrats. Instead of stopping the Taxpayer Rip-off of Prevailing Wage, AB99 has lowered the threshold from $100,000 to $2,000 and now requires the Nevada System of Higher Education (colleges & universities) to pay prevailing wages (exorbitant union wages) on essentially all jobs. This is a payoff to unions for Democrat votes.
This bill originally would have increased the threshold to $250,000 now with a proposed amendment will lower it to $2,000 and will require prevailing wages to be paid on essentially all jobs. The only reason for prevailing wages is for Dems to reward the unions. Prevailing wage is a huge rip-off of the taxpayers. The median prevailing wage for a union worker is on average 64% higher than their average wage. For instance for the category “painters, construction and maintenance” the regular pay is $29 an hour plus benefits. Under prevailing wage it goes up to $61 an hour. There may be an amendment to include rural county governments in this bill as well as NSHE. See the information from Nevada Policy Research Institute: Prevailing Wage Rates, 2019 | Nevada Policy Research Institute (npri.org)
Mar 262019

AB281: Makes Nevada a Sanctuary State for Illegals We need lots of people to come to the hearing in Carson & Las Vegas. HEARING: Friday, March 29, 8am, Assembly Judiciary Carson City Room 3138Video conferenced to Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas MESSAGE: Vote NO on AB281 which makes Nevada a sanctuary state. You should be concerned about the safety of Nevada citizens rather than illegal aliens who have broken the law. The recent murders by an illegal alien in Northern Nevada accentuate the importance of cooperating with Federal Immigration Authorities.

Contact all Members of the Assembly:Assembly Judiciary Committee, 

Chair: Steve.Yeager@asm.state.nv.us, Lesley.Cohen@asm.state.nv.usShea.Backus@asm.state.nv.us,Skip.Daly@asm.state.nv.usEdgar.Flores@asm.state.nv.usBrittany.Miller@asm.state.nv.usRochelle.Nguyen@asm.state.nv.usSarah.Peters@asm.state.nv.usSelena.Torres@asm.state.nv.usHoward.Watts@asm.state.nv.us,

Republicans: Chris.Edwards@asm.state.nv.usAlexis.Hansen@asm.state.nv.usLisa.Krasner@asm.state.nv.usTom.Roberts@asm.state.nv.usJill.Tolles@asm.state.nv.us

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/

Democrat members of Committee: Chair Steve Yeager: 775-684-8549 Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen: 775-684-8855 Assemblywoman Shea Backus: 775-684-8505 Assemblyman Skip Daly: 775-684-8563 Assemblyman Edgar Flores: 775-684-8583 Assemblyman Brittany Miller: 775-684-8833 Assemblywoman Rochelle Nguyen: 775-684-8541 Assemblywoman Sarah Peters: 775-684-8559 Assemblywoman Selena Torres: 775-684-8599 Assemblyman Howard Watts: 775-684-8835 Text AB281: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/AB/AB281.pdf

Background: “No state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department shall detain a person on the basis of a hold request, except where there is an independent finding of probable cause.”     This means state and local law enforcement will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities and clearly would make Nevada a Sanctuary State! It prohibits a state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department from detaining a person on the basis of a “hold request” from the U.S. Immigration Enforcement and the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security, except where there is an independent finding of probable cause. A “hold request” means a request by a federal immigration authority that a state or local law enforcement agency, school police unit or campus police department maintain custody of a person who is in the custody of that agency beyond the time the person would otherwise be eligible for release, to facilitate the transfer of custody of the person to the federal immigration authority. An “Independent finding of probable cause” means “a warrant which is based upon probable cause which is issued by a federal judge, etc”. A determination which is based upon clear and convincing evidence that authorizes a federal immigration authority to take into custody that person.

Illegal Immigrants Crime: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-nabs-illegal-immigrants-with-convictions-including-child-sex-crimes-in-ny-raid-slams-politicians-for-protecting-them

Cost of Illegal Immigrations to Nevadans In a special report by Federation for American Immigration Reform published in 2009, “The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Nevadans,” the author Jack Martin gives some startling numbers. But remember…the numbers are 8 years old and things are much worse now. “In 2008, the foreign born population in Nevada represented nearly one in every 5 residents (19.6%), and illegal aliens constitute nearly one in every twelve residents (8.1%). The share of children of immigrants is even higher. More than one-in-three (36.2%) Nevada residents under 18 had an immigrant parent.”

http://www.fairus.org/site/docserver/nv_costs.pdf “Nevadans spend nearly $70 million annually to educate the children of illegal immigrants in K-12 schooling. (2008 figures) An additional $45 million is being spent annually on programs for limited English students who are likely children of illegal aliens. Nearly one in six (15.8% in 2008) K-12 school students in Nevada is the child of an illegal alien, and this share has grown as the illegal resident population has grown.”

According to the Center for Immigration Studies 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used one or more welfare programs…and there is a child present in 86% of illegal immigrant households using welfare, and this is the primary way that these household access programs.” 

http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households “FAIR estimates that the annual fiscal burden on Nevada taxpayers associated with illegal immigration to be about $630 million (in 2008). This equates to an annual average cost of about $763 per native-born headed household in the state. In addition, there is a cost to the state’s economy resulting from remittances sent abroad that amounted to $618 million in 2006. From 2004 to 2006 remittance flow increased 38%. Estimated taxes collected from the illegal alien population are about $216 million.” 

Credit to: www.nevadafamilies.org    Please make checks payable to Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Mar 122019

Christians will be subjected to Government Sanctioned Discrimination & Persecution

Oppose *AJR2 which overturns Nevada’s Constitutional Amendment for Marriage  between and man and a woman.

Although, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned marriage between a man and a woman, if this Constitutional Amendment passes in Nevada, Christians will be subjected to government sanctioned discrimination & persecution. 

When I asked the question during the Assembly hearing in 2017, which Constitutional Amendment will take precedence, AJR2 the gender marriage Constitutional Amendment or the Nevada Constitutional Declaration of Rights Art. 1 Section 4 protecting Religious liberty…the Legislative Counsel Bureau (attorney for Legislature) said in Committee that the newest Constitutional Amendment, gender marriage, would take precedent over religious Liberty.  Goodbye religious liberty!!!

Please oppose *AJR2. There is no need to change Nevada’s marriage amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has already rendered it inoperative. However, changing Nevada’s marriage amendment will subject Christians to government sanctioned discrimination and persecution. Although clergy are minimally protected, church volunteers, employees, members and other religious organizations are unprotected. Individuals exercising their deeply held religious beliefs in their businesses will be subjected to religious targeting, discrimination and persecution. Please protect religious liberty. (Or write your own message) More information below.


Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/Send in Testimony to: AsmLOE@asm.state.nv.us

Background: This Constitutional Amendment will replace marriage between a man and a woman which was passed by 70% of the people in two consecutive elections in 2000 and 2002. *AJR2 already passed the Legislature in 2017 and when it passes the Legislature this session it will go on the ballot. It will mean that schools will teach LGBTQ marriage (and everything that goes with it) on an equal basis with God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. It will mean that people in business will be forced by law to participate in supporting gender marriage or go out of business. Day by Day…bill by bill…we are losing our Religious Liberties.

Text of *AJR2: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/AJR/AJR2_79.pdfText of *AJR2: Deleted in Red, Added in Blue, Current state law black,
RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE OF THE STATE OF 2 NEVADA, JOINTLY, That Section 21 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows: [Sec:] Sec. 21. [Limitation on recognition] Recognition of marriage. [Only a marriage between a male and female 6 person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.] 1. The State of Nevada and its political subdivisions shall recognize marriages and issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender. 2. Religious organizations and members of the clergy have the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage, and no person has the right to make any claim against a religious organization or member of the clergy for such a refusal. 3. All legally valid marriages must be treated equally under the law.

The Nevada Constitution in Article 1 Section 4 states: Liberty of conscience. The Free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State…but the liberty of (conscience) hereby secured…” 

The Nevada Constitution Ordinance provides “That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”    

The Preamble of the Nevada Constitution states: “We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.

The Christian Right has a New Strategy on Gay Marriagehttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-christian-right-has-a-new-strategy-on-gay-marriage/

Here’s what the Supreme Court Says about Religious Libertyhttps://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/august/same-sex-wedding-cakes-christian-service-refusals-prri.html

You can help Nevada Families for Freedom by contributing online: www.nevadafamilies.org    Please make checks payable to Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Feb 282019

Oppose AB186 National Popular Vote Colorado has just passed NPV putting us only 89 electoral votes away from implementation of the National Popular Vote Compact

We must get 3 Democrats on the Committee to Oppose AB186

Article Below on how NPV Hurts Democrats 

In order to defeat this in committee we must get 3 Democrats to vote against. We anticipate that the 2 Republicans will vote No. You can check to see if you live in their district at http://mapserve1.leg.state.nv.us/whoRU/ If you do be sure to mention it and get your neighbors to call Please contact them even if you are not in their district. CALLS are IMPORTANT! We are targeting: 

Assemblyman Fumo (Democrat Clark Dist 21) who has said he is against but is listed as a co-sponsor of SB186 NPV: 775-684-8839, Ozzie.Fumo@asm.state.nv.us

Assemblyman Skip Daly (Democrat in a swing district Washoe 31 so he cares especially about calls from his district) who said he hasn’t made up his mind. 775-684-8563, Skip.Daly@asm.state.nv.us

Assemblyman William McCurdy II, (Democrat Clark Dist 6) whose position is unknown but friendly.775-684-8545, William.McCurdy@asm.state.nv.us

Assemblywoman Selena Torres (just elected Democrat Clark Dist 3) appears to be leaning in favor.775-684-8599, Selena.Torres@asm.state.nv.us

MESSAGE: Please Vote NO on AB186 National Popular Vote. It could hurt the chances of a Democrat winning the Presidency, especially if there is an Independent Candidate. It will make small states like Nevada meaningless fly over states in the Presidential Election( Or write your own message) More information below. 

The following States plus the District of Columbia have already signed onto the NPV State Compact. Notice that every one of these states voted for Hillary Clinton in the most recent election. The states are listed with their number of electoral votes: California 55, Connecticut 7, District of Columbia 3, Hawaii 4, Illinois 20, Maryland 10, Massachusetts 11, New Jersey 14, New York 29, Rhode Island 4, Vermont 3, Washington 12, and Colorado 9 equaling 181 electoral votes. This means that according to NPV Compact they are more than 67% of the way to their goal or just 89 electoral votes short from putting the Compact into effect! If only a portion of the additional states not listed above voting for Hillary passed the NPV Compact, it would go into effect. This article explains how NPV could harm Democrats…Remember we are trying to get 3 Democrats to vote against NPV.The DANGERS of National Popular Vote

By Janine Hansen, National Constitutional Issues Chairman Eagle Forum The First Danger of NPV: The National Popular Vote Compact has no minimum percentage for a candidate to be declared the National Popular Vote Winner. What this means is in a 3 way race a candidate could win with 35% of the popular vote or even less. If we look at recent Presidential Election history from 1992, we will see that Ross Perot, an Independent millionaire and self financed Candidate, received 19% of the vote most likely causing George H. W. Bush to lose his second term. Before Ross Perot withdrew and then reentered the race, he was polling at 39%. Although Ross Perot received no Electoral College Votes, in a National Popular Vote Election that does not matter. If he or some other Independent Candidate received 39% of the popular vote, they would probably have obtained enough votes to be named the National Popular Vote winner. Before the 1992 election Republican Bush was polling at 31% and the Democrat Clinton had 25%. This could happen again in the 2020 Presidential Election. Starbucks mogul Howard Schultz has announced he is running for the Presidency as a “centrist independent”. If National Popular Vote is in force Schultz as an Independent Candidate, could win the presidency with only 39% or less of the popular vote.

His candidacy could devastate the Democrat Presidential Candidate. Like Ross Perot he is a millionaire and could be self financed. Up to 42% of Americans identify as “Independents”. People are increasingly becoming disenchanted with both political parties. There are other third parties, which would also deprive the major parties of some of the national popular votes including the Libertarian Party, Independent American /Constitution Party, Green Party and others.

Because the National Popular Vote Compact has NO minimum percentage required for the NPV Winner we could elect a candidate with no national mandate. United States has had more than one 3 way race for the presidency. In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt bolted the Republican Party and organized the Bull Moose Party. His success was to split the Republican vote so that William Howard Taft lost, electing Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Teddy Roosevelt, as a former President and as a third Party candidate actually garnered more popular votes than the Republican candidate. Wilson received 41% of the popular vote with Roosevelt receiving 27% and Taft 23%. In 1860 when Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected there were actually four candidates in the race. Lincoln received 39% of the popular vote, Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democrat Party) received 29.5%, John Breckenridge (Southern Democrat Party) received 18%, and John Bell (Constitutional Union Party) received 12% of the popular vote. We know what happened with the election of Lincoln. He had no national mandate winning with only 39% of the Popular Vote. The stark divisions in the nation at that time resulted in the Civil War and the bloodshed and death of 620,000 Americans. 

The Second Danger of NPV: There is No National Authority for determining the accuracy of the National Popular Vote for President. The Nevada legislative proposal AB186 is exactly the same as proposals in other states. AB186 requires on page 2 line 26: …the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate IN EACH STATE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and SHALL ADD SUCH VOTES TOGETHER TO PRODUCE A “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE TOTAL” for each presidential slate. Wow! So our Secretary of State is responsible for determining the validity of the presidential election vote in 50 states and the District of Columbia. And that is also true for each “chief election officer in each state. Who is the arbitrator if states don’t agree? There is no answer in the NPV Compact.

Currently, the Director of the Federal Register has been designated by the Archivist of the United States and is responsible for obtaining from the states the certificated results of the election. There is a careful process for determining the correct election results. There is nothing comparable to that well defined and safeguarded process in the National Popular Vote Compact. How will the public be able to trust the election results by 51 chief election officers when there is no national process to certify the votes? In the past some states have even failed to send their results to the Archivist of the United States.

What happens if, as a part of the Compact, Nevada’s Secretary of State designates a different National Popular Vote Winner than the one of the other states in the Compact designate? What if a Chief Election Officer of a state wherein the Popular Vote differs from the National Popular Vote “Winner” REFUSES to betray the voters of his state and does not certify the electors for the National Popular Vote “Winner”? Will the other States take that State to Court? Will it throw the election into the hands of the Supreme Court? What happens, as just happened in North Carolina, if Voter Fraud is discovered and the election is overturned? Does that nullify the National Popular Vote Total and nullify the Presidential election? Does it delay the election of the President throwing the nation into a Constitutional Crisis and political chaos? Will it result in endless recounts and lawsuits? 

The Third Danger of NPV National Popular Vote sets up a system of betrayal of the Voters. Under NPV if Nevada votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate, but the National Popular Vote winner is determined to be the Republican or the Independent, the Secretary of State in Nevada will be forced to betray the Voters of Nevada certifying presidential electors for the candidate who did not receive the popular vote in Nevada. This kind of betrayal will infuriate the voters of Nevada and subject those who supported such a vote stealing scheme to their wrath of the voters! National Popular Vote creates instability jeopardizing what the Electoral College has provided for over 200 years—the peaceful transfer of power. 

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/

Text of AB186: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/AB/AB186.pdf

We depend on your individual free will gifts! Thank you!

You can help Nevada Families for Freedom by contributing online: www.nevadafamilies.org    Please make checks payable to Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Feb 202019

Take Action Against Universal Background Checks: Contact your County Commissioners New Mexico’s Counties pass resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties!

16 of 17 Counties in Nevada (all but Clark) voted against Bloomberg’s Universal Background checks. New Yorker Bloomberg poured $18 million into our state to force background checks. The statewide vote was 558,631 in favor and 548,732 only 9,899 difference. Statewide it was 50.45% in favor and 49.55% opposed. The results from all counties but Clark voting against Background Checks range from Washoe at the lowest with 54.34% against, Carson 65.65% to Eureka at 90.28%. Other rural counties range from 75% to 88.63%.

 https://www.nvsos.gov/silverstate2016gen/ballot-questions/  New Mexico’s County Commissions faced with their state Legislature imposing Universal Background checks have begun to pass county Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions with the support of their sheriffs. “The purpose is to get the attention of Albuquerque and Santa Fe,” Sheriff Ferrari said. ”

As Sheriff, I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. As Sheriff, I want to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.”

“San Juan, Lincoln, and Eddy counties are just the latest to make the move and approve such resolutions. Quay, Union, Curry, and Socorro counties have all drafted resolutions that represent the latest push back against state firearms legislation.”


The Nevada Legislature passed SB143 Universal Background checks and Governor Sisolak signed it into law which goes into effect January 2, 2020. Text of Nevada’s SB143 Universal Background Checks. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/SB/SB143.pdf Nevada’s County Commissioners should begin their push back with similar resolutions to New Mexico.

Contact your pro-Second Amendment Commissioners and Sheriffs. Defend the Second Amendment against Nevada’s Bloomberg Universal Background Check..

SOURCE: Nevada Families 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Feb 202019

Yesterday the Nevada State Senate introduced an outrageous abortion bill SB179 which removes from our law the requirement of “informed consent” before having an abortion, including making sure the woman is pregnant and informing her of how many weeks pregnant she is, what procedure for the abortion will be used, the proper procedures for care after the abortion and the risks after the abortion.

In addition, the bill removes the provisions for parental notification for a minor child before they can have an abortion. These provisions were overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but have remained in our law. If we had an Attorney General who was willing to challenge it again with our new U.S. Supreme Court it could be reactivated. It is outrageous that the Progressive Democrats oppose parental notification and informed consent. They really don’t care about parents or girls and women but only their radical agenda which has now become apparent…even killing babies after they are born. SB179 is so extreme that it repeals NRS 201.150 “Concealing birth; penalty. Every person who shall endeavor to conceal the birth of a child by any disposition of its dead body, whether the child died before or after its birth, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.” What?!!! It will not be a crime to dispose of a child’s dead body! No hearing has been set yet. I have enclosed some information from Nevada Right to Life who we are partnering with in opposing this bill.

MESSAGE: Please oppose SB179. It is irresponsible to remove informed consent protections from abortion laws leaving women open to exploitation. Removing parental notification for abortion from our law is thoroughly disdainful of parents’ rights and responsibilities. Please protect our minor daughters from the abuse of others who do not have their best interests in mind. (Or write your own message)

CONTACT: Democrat Senators:  Kelvin.Atkinson@sen.state.nv.us,Chris.Brooks@sen.state.nv.usYvanna.Cancella@sen.state.nv.us,Nicole.Cannizzaro@sen.state.nv.us,Moises.Denis@sen.state.nv.us,Marilyn.DonderoLoop@sen.state.nv.usDallas.Harris@sen.state.nv.us,James.Ohrenschall@sen.state.nv.usDavid.Parks@sen.state.nv.us,Julia.Ratti@sen.state.nv.usMelanie.Scheible@sen.state.nv.us,Pat.Spearman@sen.state.nv.usJoyce.Woodhouse@sen.state.nv.us

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills:  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/

Text of SB179:  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/SB/SB179.pdf We are working closely with Nevada Right to Life on this important issue.  www.NevadaRighttoLife.org

Content from: Nevada Families, not tax deductible, 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, NV 89801

Feb 172019

Nevada Families for Freedom

State Affiliate National Eagle Forum186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, Nevada 89801, 775-397-6859, Sparks 775-356-0105 Janine Hansen  director@nevadafamilies.orgwww.nevadafamilies.org 

Feb. 17, 2019, In the Year of Our Lord 2019 

Oppose SB123: Same Day Register and Vote on Election Day  HEARING: Wed. Feb 20, 4:00pm, Senate Legislative Operations & Elections Committee, Rm 2144, Video conferenced to Rm 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas, NV. 

MESSAGE: Oppose SB123 Citizens have many opportunities all year long including at the DMV to register to vote. They should take some responsibility for registering to vote. Registering to Vote on Election Day puts our election system at risk for fraud. (or write your own message) 

CONTACT: James.Ohrenschall@sen.state.nv.usNicole.Cannizzaro@sen.state.nv.usYvanna.Cancela@sen.state.nv.usKeith.Pickard@sen.state.nv.usHeidi.Gansert@sen.state.nv.us 

Background: This bill allows people to register to vote on Election Day, for all elections including Primaries. To register to vote they must appear at one or more sites designated by the county or city clerk to register to vote, complete an application to register to vote and provide proof of identity and residence. The voter may vote only at the polling place where he registered to vote. Nevada’s law now allows people to register to vote 1) by mail by the fourth Tuesday before the election (that’s one week) 2) by appearing in person by at the office of the county or city clerk by the third Tuesday preceding an election (that’s two weeks), now we have automatic voter registration when you go to the DMV and you can register to vote online. Are people so irresponsible that they find it impossible to register to vote in advance? 

The Problem with Same Day Voter Registration (Fraud)https://www.americanmajority.org/vote-fraud/the-problem-with-same-day-voter-registration/“Same-day Voter Registration requires the voter to complete the application and provide “proof of residence” documentation. Ballots for same-day registrants are counted in that election but the actual registration is not verified until AFTER Election Day…For example, in the 2008 election, 62,000 voters registered on Election Day ALONE in the City of Milwaukee. How many of those registrations were actually legitimate? But all of their votes were counted in the election.” Does anyone find it odd that 62,000 had forgone any other option for registering and decided to wait until Election Day?

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills:


Send Testimony to: SenLOE@sen.state.nv.us

Text of SB123


Feb 172019

State Affiliate National Eagle Forum 186 Ryndon Unit 12, Elko, Nevada 89801, 775-397-6859, Sparks 775-356-0105

Janine Hansen director@nevadafamilies.orgwww.nevadafamilies.org 

Feb. 17, 2019, In the Year of Our Lord 2019

When you forward please delete bottom portion which says unsubscribe or someone will unsubscribe for you. Thank you for Acknowledgement. Please pray for the Legislature and the Governor.

Oppose Big Brother Automated Traffic Cameras Giving Tickets HEARING: Tuesday Feb 19, 1:30pm, Senate Growth & Infrastructure Committee, Room 2135, Video conferenced to Room 4412E of the Grant Sawyer Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas, NV. 

MESSAGE: Oppose SB43 Auto Traffic Cameras which will give tickets. This is Big Brother and another scheme to pick the pockets of citizens. It is ripe for abuse with private companies holding way too much information on individual citizens. (or write your own message) 

CONTACT: Yvanna.Cancela@sen.state.nv.usChris.Brooks@sen.state.nv.usMoises.Denis@sen.state.nv.usKelvin.Atkinson@sen.state.nv.usPat.Spearman@sen.state.nv.usJoe.Hardy@sen.state.nv.usJames.Settelmeyer@sen.state.nv.usScott.Hammond@sen.state.nv.us 

Background information: SB43 changes Nevada law to allow tickets to be issued through traffic cameras. The minimum administrative fine will be $50 and if you don’t pay in a month it goes up to $100. The purpose of this law is to increase revenues for local governments…another revenue stream. As of 2018 at least 7 states were trying to ban red-light cameras. One problem is that tickets are issued to the owner of the car whether or not they are driving and they have to prove they weren’t driving. Arizona State Rep. Travis Grantham, “I think everyone in the country should be concerned about this type of law enforcement action, especially when it’s so ripe with corruption.” In one case in Arizona in 2016, a former traffic light enforcement camera vendor was sentenced to prison for bribery and fraud. “The practice of privatizing law enforcement actions is just wrong,” Grantham said. “Every aspect of it is wrong. When you add the equation of for-profit into the mix, it presents a lot of opportunity for fraud and abuse.” Brantham said the third-party companies are holding too much data about motorists… 

Sixteen municipalities have held public referenda against these programs, all successful. Major cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, Raleigh and Houston have rejected red-light cameras after initially approving them. Almost every state with red-light cameras has spurred citizen opposition groups with mad-as-hell names like, “Ban the Cams”, “Wrong on Red,” and “Highway Robbery.” Americans feel rightly outraged when they believe others game the system to use the law as a way to pick their pockets. They get incensed to discover that contracts with private camera vendors can dictate policing and safety practices even when the public has weighed in against those practices.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/phineas-baxandall/in-the-public-interest-pr_b_1039852.html https://www.foxnews.com/us/red-light-cameras-come-under-fire-at-least-7-states-trying-to-ban-them 

Share your opinion on Legislative Bills:   https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/

Text of SB43https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/80th2019/Bills/SB/SB43.pdf

Send in Testimony to:SenGRI@sen.state.nv.us