WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 585

Relating to: designating the wild turkey as the state game bird and the ruffed grouse as the state upland game bird.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Elijah Behnke and 10 co-sponsors

AB 585 cuts pre-session bill-draft requests and tightens deadlines for legislators, leaders, and officers, with stricter post-Dec filings and more detailed submissions.

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 585

AB 585 (BDR 17-1137) — Summary

Status: Vetoed by the Governor (delivered to Governor 2025-06-06; vetoed 2025-06-12)
Introduced: February 12, 2025
Primary subject: Revises rules for requests to draft legislative measures (bill draft requests / BDRs)

Purpose / Intent

AB 585 was intended to reduce the number of pre-session bill-draft requests available to legislators and certain state officers, tighten pre-session deadlines, and require more complete information at each pre-session filing. The sponsors described the goal as reducing the total number of bills, improving bill quality, and lowering workload for lawmakers, staff, and stakeholders.

Key provisions and changes

  • Reduces the total number of pre-session BDRs authorized for legislators:
    • Incumbent Assembly members: from 9 to 6 (split between two pre-session deadline periods).
    • Incumbent Senators: from 18 to 12 (split between two pre-session deadline periods).
  • Splits pre-session requests equally between two deadlines (generally Aug. 1 and Dec. 10) and requires submission of information “sufficient in detail” to allow drafting or to allow withdrawal at each deadline.
    • If a legislator fails to provide sufficient detail (or withdraw) at the earlier deadline, the number of requests available at the subsequent pre-session deadline is reduced accordingly.
  • Limits on post-December 10 filing during session (examples):
    • Incumbent Assembly members: up to 1 measure filed after Dec. 10 but no later than 5 p.m. on the 8th day of session.
    • Incumbent Senators: up to 2 such measures (same timing).
    • Similar limits for newly elected members (reduced compared with current law).
  • Reduces additional drafting privileges for legislative leaders and statewide officers:
    • Speaker and Senate Majority Leader: from 15 to 10 requests.
    • Assembly and Senate Minority Leaders: from 10 to 5 requests.
    • Governor: revises timing/deadlines for requests related to the Governor’s legislative agenda (deadlines differ depending on whether a gubernatorial election occurs before the session); requires prefiling of the Governor’s agenda measures on or before the 10th calendar day preceding the session when no gubernatorial election will occur, or introduction on or before the 15th day if an election will occur before the session.
    • Lieutenant Governor: 3 ➜ 2; Secretary of State: 8 ➜ 6; Treasurer: 5 ➜ 4; Controller: 5 ➜ 4; Attorney General: 20 ➜ 16.
  • Affirmation that local districts may still file death/fetal death certificates manually (this appears to be an unrelated insertion in earlier drafts and is not central to the BDR changes).

Who would be affected

  • Primary: Nevada state legislators (incumbent and newly elected members), legislative leaders, and constitutional officers who request bill drafting services.
  • Secondary: Legislative Counsel (process changes), legislative staff, committee staff, and stakeholders who participate in bill development and hearings.
  • Fiscal: The enrolled bill carried a fiscal note stating no effect on state or local government.

Procedural timeline and legislative history

  • Referred to committee Feb 24, 2025; committee hearings in March–May 2025.
  • Passed both houses (Assembly final vote: 17 yeas, 4 nays; Senate earlier passage: 23 yeas, 16 nays, 3 excused).
  • Enrolled and delivered to Governor June 6, 2025; vetoed June 12, 2025.
  • Committee actions: Referred to Legislative Operations & Elections; recommendation to Appropriations suspense file; held under submission May 23, 2025.

Support, opposition, and anticipated impacts

  • Supporters argued the bill would reduce the total number of bills, cut workload, and improve overall bill quality.
  • Opponents (including testimony from at least one newly elected legislator) argued reductions disproportionately limit newly elected members and minority-party members, further centralize control of the legislative agenda, and provide no guarantee of hearings or procedural protections for disadvantaged members.
  • Net effect (had it become law): fewer pre-session BDRs, stricter filing/detail requirements, and potentially fewer low-priority or poorly-vetted bills introduced — balanced against concerns about limiting representation and legislative opportunity for some members.

Note: The bill was not enacted due to the Governor’s veto.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.