WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 66

Relating to: dismissing or amending certain criminal charges and deferred prosecution agreements for certain crimes.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Elijah Behnke and 13 co-sponsors

Nevada AB 66 (BDR 1-473) increases the number of district judges in the First and Tenth Judicial Districts, with new judges to take office in 2027.

Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Public Safety
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 66

Summary — AB 66 (BDR 1‑473) — Revises provisions relating to district courts

Note: The document set provided contains materials from two distinct bills both numbered “AB 66.” This summary focuses on AB 66 (BDR 1‑473), the Nevada bill regarding district courts (as titled). A brief note about a separate California AB 66 (CEQA/egress route exemption) is provided at the end for clarity.

Purpose / intent

AB 66 (BDR 1‑473), introduced on behalf of the Nevada Supreme Court, proposes increasing the number of district judges in certain Nevada judicial districts to address workload and access to justice. Earlier versions also proposed an automatic, population‑based schedule for adding judges; that automatic schedule was later deleted by amendment.

Key provisions (final reprint / amended form)

  • Increases the statutory number of district judges in two judicial districts:
    • First Judicial District (Carson City & Storey County): from 2 to 3 judges.
    • Tenth Judicial District (Churchill County): from 1 to 2 judges.
  • Timing and selection:
    • The additional judges are to be selected at the general election on November 3, 2026.
    • New judges would take office January 4, 2027, with terms expiring January 3, 2033 (consistent with existing staggered term structure).
  • Fiscal/mandate language:
    • The bill contains an unfunded mandate for local government (not requested by affected local governments).
    • The bill notes potential fiscal impacts on local governments and on the State.

Who is affected

  • Nevada judicial system: judicial districts receiving additional judge positions (First and Tenth) will have increased bench capacity.
  • Counties within affected districts (Carson City, Storey, Churchill): may experience additional local costs (facilities, staff, security, operating expenses).
  • State budget and administrative offices (for election, appointment logistics, and judicial compensation/benefits as applicable).

Procedural / timeline highlights

  • Prefiled November 20, 2024; introduced December 3, 2024.
  • Underwent committee consideration and amendments in early–mid 2025 (Assembly Judiciary Committee; amendment No. 286 substantially narrowed the bill).
  • First reprint (April 21, 2025) retained only the increases for the 1st and 10th Judicial Districts.
  • Additional legislative activity recorded through mid‑2025; status entry in the provided notes: “No further action taken.”

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Positive effect: expands judicial capacity in targeted districts, potentially reducing caseload pressure and delays.
  • Cost implications: local governments may incur additional operating expenses (court facilities, clerical staff, security) and the bill is designated as containing an unfunded mandate.
  • The broader, earlier proposal to create an automatic population‑triggered schedule for adding judges was deleted; thus increases are currently discrete (1st and 10th) rather than formulaic.

Note on the separate California AB 66 (Tangipa)

The document set also includes text for a California Assembly Bill 66 (authored by Tangipa) unrelated to Nevada’s BDR 1‑473. That California bill would (until Jan 1, 2032) create a limited CEQA exemption for certain public‑agency egress/secondary access projects for subdivisions lacking secondary egress in high fire‑hazard areas, subject to numerous conditions (no wetlands/riparian, no impacts to listed species or cultural resources, public meeting requirement, DFW consultation, notice of exemption filings, funding/approvals within one year, etc.). This California measure is a separate bill and should not be conflated with Nevada’s AB 66 (BDR 1‑473).

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

Sign in to ask a question.