LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Lawmakers moved forward on the path to allowing lottery ticket sales in Nevada, but Las Vegans should count on driving to Primm for a couple more years at least.
The Assembly passed changes to the Nevada Constitution on Monday, but the Senate must still approve them this year. And then the legislation has to pass the Legislature again in 2025. If that succeeds, it would open the door to new laws in a state that has outlawed lotteries since 1864.
That’s a lot of hoops for Assembly Joint Resolution 5 (AJR5), but it’s still got a heartbeat.
While it appeared a mix of Democrats and Republicans were on board as AJR5 passed 26-15, Republican Assemblyman Bert Gurr intended to vote against it and made an error in casting his vote. Assemblyman C.H. Miller (D-North Las Vegas) is the bill’s sponsor. The resolution merely allows lotteries by removing language that prohibits them.
The Assembly also passed AJR6 — a resolution to join the National Popular Vote Compact, which favors the popular vote in the presidential election rather than electoral votes. AJR6 faces the same long path to passage.
In the Senate on Monday, emotional statements on both sides of Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR7) brought passionate arguments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision reversing Roe v. Wade.
SJR7 is an effort to put guarantees of rights to reproductive health care into the state constitution. It passed in the Senate on a 13-8 vote — along party lines — and is now headed for the Assembly.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, who is pregnant, argued for SJR7.
“There has to be one guiding principle in this, and that is that politicians — politicians — should not be interfering in personal decisions between patients and their doctors when it comes to reproductive care. There shouldn’t. I do not want anyone in (the Nevada Senate) to help me make decisions about my current status as an expectant mother. That’s not your business. It’s my business, my doctor’s business,” Cannizzaro said.
Senator Heidi Seevers Gansert (R-Washoe County) said the Freedom of Choice Act, passed in Nevada three decades ago, makes it a moot point. She said putting language into the constitution was going too far.
“In my mind, there’s just not a threat to a lot of the things that are on those lists because we’ve never had an issue with that,” she said.
“The language of this resolution is very broad. It conflicts with current statute,” Seevers Gansert said.
