Revises provisions governing Nevada Educational Choice Scholarship Program. (BDR 34-130)
AB 214 revises the Nevada Educational Choice Scholarship Program in several ways. It substantially expands the tax-credit cap available to donors who contribute to scholarship organizations, increasing the annual amount from $6.655 million to $30 million for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and then allowing the cap to grow by 10 percent each subsequent fiscal year. The bill also creates a parallel credit against the state insurance premium tax for insurers that donate to scholarship organizations, bringing insurers into the same donation-credit framework already available to certain other taxpayers.
The bill also broadens who may receive scholarship grants and how those grants are prioritized. It expands eligibility to include pupils who previously received a grant, siblings of current or prior recipients, pupils with individualized education programs, and pupils whose parent or guardian is active duty military, a peace officer, or a firefighter. It raises the income threshold for eligibility from 300 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level and requires scholarship organizations to award grants in a specified priority order, with each grant set at no less than $1,000. The bill retains existing requirements that scholarship organizations be nonprofit entities, limit administrative expenses, and pay grants directly to schools chosen by parents or guardians.
AB 214 would amend multiple sections of Nevada law, primarily in Chapter 388D governing scholarship organizations and in the tax provisions for the modified business tax and insurance premium tax. It also makes conforming changes to insurance code provisions so the new premium-tax credit applies to insurers and related entities subject to those taxes. In practical terms, the bill would increase the amount of state tax revenue forgone through scholarship donation credits while expanding the pool of students and donors eligible to participate in the program.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented debate or vote history to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, the likely policy sentiment is favorable toward school choice and donor incentives, since it expands both scholarship eligibility and the tax-credit funding mechanism. At the same time, the bill’s larger fiscal impact and the expansion of credits to insurers could draw scrutiny from those concerned about reduced state revenue, the use of tax expenditures for private-school scholarships, or the prioritization rules that favor continuing recipients and certain categories of students over others.
Notable points of contention would likely center on the increased cap on tax credits, the new insurance premium tax credit, and the broader eligibility rules. Supporters would likely emphasize access for low-income families, students with disabilities, military families, and public safety families, while critics may question whether the program diverts too much revenue from the general fund and whether the grant structure favors private-school access over other education investments.
The bill would amend Nevada’s scholarship tax-credit statutes and insurance tax provisions, increasing the annual amount of credits available for donations to scholarship organizations and creating a new premium-tax credit for insurers. It would also expand scholarship eligibility, set a minimum grant amount, and establish a statutory priority order for awarding grants, thereby changing how scholarship organizations allocate funds and which pupils receive first access to awards.
No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative sentiment in the materials supplied. The bill’s design suggests generally supportive sentiment toward school choice, family access, and donor participation, but the larger credit cap and new insurer credit likely make the fiscal impact a central concern for any skeptical lawmakers or budget-focused stakeholders.
The main areas of contention are likely the size of the tax-credit expansion, the addition of insurers to the donor-credit structure, and the policy choice to broaden eligibility for private-school scholarship grants. Supporters would likely favor the expanded access for low-income students, siblings, students with IEPs, military families, and first responders’ families, while opponents may object to the revenue loss, the use of tax credits to subsidize private education, and the preferential priority given to returning recipients and certain student categories.