Revises provisions relating to notaries public. (BDR 19-879)
Summary
AB 189 revises Nevada law governing notaries public and the administration of oaths and affirmations. The bill adds statutory definitions for “oath” and “affirmation,” clarifying that an affirmation is a solemn declaration equivalent to an oath and that an oath includes a pledge made under conscience or to a higher power. It also states that, whenever an oath or affirmation is required, a person may choose either form and both have the same legal effect.
The bill further authorizes oaths or affirmations to be given in writing, orally, or through another equivalent mode of communication, so long as the method complies with the applicable law, regulation, or rule of procedure. It expressly identifies two common settings in which a notarial officer may administer an oath or affirmation: testimony in legal proceedings, including depositions and pretrial hearings, and the assumption of public office or other duties requiring such a pledge. The bill also makes these new definitions and rules applicable throughout the notary chapter of Nevada law.
Impact
AB 189 amends Chapter 240 of the Nevada Revised Statutes by adding new definitions and operational rules for notarial officers. It does not create a fiscal impact on the state or local governments, according to the bill summary. The practical effect is to standardize how oaths and affirmations are treated across contexts, broaden acceptable communication methods for administering them, and reinforce that affirmations are legally equivalent to oaths for purposes where a sworn statement is required.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan or at least broad legislative support for the bill, as it passed the Assembly on final passage by a 42-0 vote. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate opposition or significant concern. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a technical or clarifying measure rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention are evident in the provided materials. The main issues the bill addresses are definitional clarity, equivalence between oaths and affirmations, and the permissibility of alternative communication modes. If any concern existed, it would likely have centered on ensuring that remote or nontraditional oath-taking methods still comply with procedural requirements, but no opposition or dispute is reflected in the vote record or transcripts provided.