The Nevada Legislature is bereft of transparency, and the two legislative sessions of 2025 have repeatedly underscored the issue. The legislature has exempted itself for decades from the Open Meetings Law that it expects other public bodies in Nevada to follow. When lawmakers last changed that law in 2013, they only change the wording to make that exemption even more explicit This absurd provision has enshrined a culture built on decisions made behind the closed doors.
How Nevada’s 83rd Session Deepened Public Distrust
In the 83rd legislative session lawmakers generated new reasons for public distrust in the state government by killing numerous transparency proposals and introducing new bills minutes before Sine Die. However, the 36th special session, just months after the conclusion the regular session, raised the alarms to the next level with unprecedented lobbying, questionable procedural maneuvers, and redefinitions of “emergencies.” With a dramatic conclusion after seven days of tense political disputes, the strain that it left on the public trust cannot be ignored.
A Special Session Announced With Almost No Public Warning
The governor’s proclamation of the special session was disclosed to the public on a Wednesday evening, just hours before lawmakers gathered in Carson City chambers. Although special sessions are generally convened for emergency situations and generally lack the same level of public participation as regular sessions, the late announcement coupled with late publication of bill language further decreased public participation opportunities for some of the high-profile bills.
Procedural Maneuvers That Shut Out Public Participation
Many process decisions by the majority party also called into question leadership’s commitment to public participation. Perhaps the biggest point of controversy was the proposed expansion of the infamous film tax credit. During the first reading of the measure on the Assembly floor, Assemblymember La Rue Hatch objected to the motion for the bill to receive a committee hearing. Although outlined in the Assembly Standing Rules, this is not a commonly utilized provision, hence, it caused an hour-long recess as the Assembly tried to navigate the situation and scramble votes.
Assembly leadership invoked other procedural maneuvers with little precedent that allowed the film tax credit proposal to advance even with restricted public participation. For example, Assemblymembers Hibbets and Kasama were allowed to cast their votes remotely after Speaker Yeager determined with legal counsel that the bill could be considered an emergency. (The need to subsidize films was urgent!)
On the other hand, the public was not allowed to provide testimony in the same remote fashion. The duality of the approach raised eyebrows, with Assemblymember Gonzalez choosing to cast her vote remotely from her office as a demonstration that bending the definition of an “emergency matter” can be absurd.
A Controversial Attempt to Revive a Failed Housing Bill
Later, Senators Dina Neal and Ira Hansen proposed to bring a failed bill from the regular session to the special session agenda. SB 10 aimed to address the housing crisis by prohibiting some buyers from Nevada market. It was not part of the original proclamation agenda of the Governor, so the legislators took an unprecedented legal action, invoking their power to call themselves into a special session by a two-thirds majority vote. Republican Sen. Ira Hansen and his wife, Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen, joined the Democratic caucus to sign a petition for a special session.
The move is debateable, because according to the official language of the 2012 constitutional amendment the Legislature can call itself into a completely separate special session but can’t necessarily append new items to agenda of one called by the governor.
Neal’s bill with nearly identical language had been vetoed by the governor in June and failed to pass out of both chambers during the special session as well. SB 10 proposed to prohibit corporate entities from purchasing more than 1,000 residential statewide per year in order to reduce the pool of buyers by diktat. (The original bill proposed a limit of 100 and was later amended.) Corporate investors in housing would also have to register with the state for monitoring and compliance purposes.
Eleventh-Hour Passage of SJR 1 Raises Election Integrity Concerns
The final debacle of procedural transparency took place as Senate Majority Leader Cannizzaro introduced (and passed with majority vote) Senate Joint Resolution 1 in the last hour of the special session. The measure proposed a constitutional amendment to require mail-in ballots to be sent to all Nevada residents and increase the number and operational hours of drop-off locations. According to the resolution language, Nevadans would be required to opt out of the program to stop receiving ballots through the mail. The eleventh-hour nature of SJR 1, coupled with its rash passage raise serious ballot harvesting concerns and further undermine the confidence in election procedures.
Why None of These Actions Met the Standard for an Actual Emergency
Ultimately, it’s difficult to construe any of the measures passed during the 36th special session as a true emergency that merited the session’s convocation emergencies. Instead, lawmakers used the occasion to remind the public, how little they care for an open, transparent and rule-bound democratic process. Voters should expect more of their elected representatives—and they could start by demanding the legislature finally become subject to the Open Meetings Law.
