Revises provisions relating to elections. (BDR 24-362)
Summary
AB 262 revises Nevada election law to let certain election workers serve without pay if they choose to do so. The bill applies to county and city election board officers, counting board officers, voting board officers, and pupil trainees who assist at elections. Under the measure, these individuals may still be compensated under existing local pay-setting authority, but they are newly given the option to volunteer and receive no compensation instead.
The bill also makes conforming changes to special-election provisions in the Las Vegas City Charter and the Airport Authority Acts for Battle Mountain and Carson City. In those local election settings, officers appointed for special elections may likewise choose to serve as unpaid volunteers. The bill is effective July 1, 2025.
Impact
AB 262 amends several provisions in Nevada’s election statutes, including NRS 293.2175, 293.460, and 293C.222, to add an express volunteer option for otherwise compensable election personnel. It does not eliminate compensation requirements generally; rather, it preserves local authority to set pay while allowing eligible workers to waive compensation. The bill also updates three local laws governing special elections so that appointed election officers in those jurisdictions may serve without pay. Its practical effect is to give counties, cities, and certain special-election authorities more flexibility in staffing elections, potentially reducing election administration costs and expanding the pool of available workers.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported but not unanimously so. It passed the Assembly 26-16 and the Senate 13-8, indicating meaningful bipartisan or intra-party disagreement rather than broad consensus. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee arguments, but the final votes indicate the measure had enough support to advance while still drawing notable opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether allowing unpaid election service is an appropriate or desirable change to election administration. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a flexibility measure that could help fill staffing needs and reduce costs, especially for local governments and special elections. Opponents may have been concerned that unpaid service could undermine fair compensation for election workers, create inequities in who can afford to serve, or affect recruitment and retention of trained personnel. Because the bill applies to both regular and special election contexts, disagreement may also have centered on whether volunteer election staffing could affect professionalism, reliability, or accessibility of election operations.