Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo plays a pivotal role in shaping the legislative landscape of the Silver State. Once a bill lands on the governor’s desk, the countdown begins. They have a limited window to sign, or veto bills the Legislature sends. 75 bills faced Lombardo’s veto—setting a record for vetoes in a single session.

These vetoes have a direct impact on the daily lives of Nevadans. Understanding them is not just a matter of interest, but a way to empower yourself to participate in the democratic process.

The recent decisions on Senate Bill 335 (SB335) have sparked significant debate and concern among Nevadans, particularly those closely watching the housing market. This article aims to demystify the governor’s vetoes in a clear, non-political manner, ensuring all readers can grasp the implications and feel knowledgeable about the legislative process.

Want to go beyond reading and act? Find out how below!

But first, let’s learn about SB335.

What is SB335 About?

SB335 passed in 2023, aimed to extend protections for tenants facing eviction while awaiting rental assistance decisions. The bill sought to implement a scaled-back version of the protections implemented during the pandemic but was vetoed by the governor several days after it was passed.

SB335 allowed tenants to request a 60-day stay if the party applied for rental aid and faced eviction. Landlords would be required to accept rental assistance payments or proceed with eviction if the assistance didn’t cover the debt.

How Would SB335 Work?

Imagine SB335 as a traffic light that turns yellow when a tenant applies for rental assistance. Landlords cannot proceed with eviction proceedings during this ‘yellow light’ period.

If the rental assistance fully covers the tenant’s debt, the light turns red, stopping the eviction process and allowing them to stay. However, if the aid doesn’t cover the debt or is denied, it’s green lit the eviction, and landlords can proceed as usual.

The bill also proposed a diversion program for tenants facing eviction, further complicating the process.

Was SB335 The Only Eviction Bill?

Sponsored by Senator James Ohrenschall, SB335 would extend a pandemic-era practice prohibiting landlords from evicting a tenant who had already filed for assistance. But this bill relied on another to see its way through the legislative process.

Assembly Bill 340 would have restricted Nevada’s summary eviction process, like California’s. The revised procedures would mandate detailed written notices, court filing requirements, and a specific timeline before evicting a tenant.

These bills go hand in hand, and BOTH would have added lengthy delays and burdensome requirements for owners and tenants alike. Think of SB335 and AB340 as two gears in a machine designed to regulate eviction processes in Nevada. SB335 acts like a clutch that temporarily stops the gears from turning when a tenant applies for rental assistance, briefly pausing eviction proceedings.

AB340, on the other hand, adjusts the speed and direction of these gears by setting up additional guidelines and diversion programs for tenants facing eviction. Together, they aim to balance tenant protections and landlord rights in Nevada’s housing market.

SB335 would only go into effect if this California-style eviction process were approved and enacted. The ending of the pandemic emergency negates the need for either process and prolongs the fallout of a disaster that the then governor did not properly handle in the first place.

I know that we’re seeing Californians come to the state like it’s the gold rush, and they’re in high need of gold (perhaps just affordable rent—what a coincidence), but that doesn’t mean we need to adopt all the Golden State’s principles. We’re not the same state, and we don’t have the same problems; legislators must act accordingly.

And that’s precisely what Lombardo did.

Why Did Gov. Lombardo Veto SB335?

Lombardo’s veto of SB335 was based on his argument that it would place undue burdens on landlords and disrupt Nevada’s rental market. He expressed concerns that the bill would lead to prolonged eviction proceedings, potentially increasing rental costs and reducing property availability. This decision has significant implications for the housing market, and it’s important for all Nevadans to be aware and concerned about these potential consequences.

Gov. Lombardo’s veto message highlighted that SB335 would have created hurdles for landlords seeking to evict non-compliant tenants. He argued that the bill would disrupt the efficiency of Nevada’s rental market and potentially lead to higher rental costs as landlords adjust for increased risks and delays.

In the veto, Lombardo writes that SB335 would create “onerous burdens in Nevada’s residential renting market by requiring even more hurdles for a landlord to evict a non-compliant tenant by establishing a judicial diversion program for such tenants.” He adds, “Since this bill would not improve the landscape of Nevada’s residential renting market, I cannot support it.”

What Effect Would SB335 Have on Nevadans?

Gov. Lombardo understands the long-term impacts of passing SB335, and this understanding guided his decision. The bill would not help but harm the renting market and could lead to the destruction of residential spaces that non-compliant tenants are allowed to stay in. That destruction could cost hundreds, even thousands, of dollars, thereof leading to the rise in rents anyway.

Vetoing bills like SB335 underscores Nevada’s delicate balance between tenant protections and property rights. The need for balanced policies to safeguard rights and ensure fair housing for all should reassure Nevadans that there is hope for a fair and just housing market.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Understanding the implications of legislative actions like these is crucial for advocating policies supporting tenant rights and sustainable housing markets in Nevada. Your voice and opinions matter, so share them! Visit Nevada Policy’s Action Center and voice your concerns to elected officials. Your engagement can make a difference in shaping the future of Nevada’s housing market.

In the maze of legislative changes, Nevada’s rental market teeters on a tightrope where every move impacts landlords and tenants. Your voice can steer the course—advocate for balanced policies safeguarding rights while ensuring fair housing for all.