WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 291

Relating to: native prairie and forage plants.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Clint Anderson and 28 co-sponsors

AB 291 prevents courts from considering sealed prior proceedings when deciding petitions to seal other convictions, strengthening sealing protections.

Representative Haywood added as a coauthor
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 291

AB 291 — Summary (2025 session)

Status: Introduced Jan 22, 2025. Passed Assembly (Apr–May 2025); amended and reprinted. Referred to Senate committees; held under submission Aug 29, 2025. (Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.3, no further action allowed.)

Main purpose

AB 291 revises Nevada law governing sealing of criminal history records. The bill (as amended and reprinted) removes courts’ authority to consider prior proceedings for which records have been sealed when deciding whether to grant a petition to seal records relating to a separate conviction. In short, once a proceeding’s records are sealed, that proceeding generally may not be used against the person in later sealing petitions involving other convictions.

Key provisions (as amended / reprinted)

  • Amends NRS 179.295 to expressly prohibit a court, when deciding whether to grant a petition to seal records related to a conviction, from considering any prior proceeding for which records have been sealed under specified statutes (e.g., NRS 174.034, 176.211, 179.245, 179.255, 179.259, 453.3365, etc.).
  • Maintains existing limited exceptions for inspection of sealed records (e.g., prosecutorial showings of newly discovered evidence, or inspection for identifying persons involved in an incident).
  • Includes a transitional provision: the amendatory provisions apply to petitions filed on or after October 1, 2025.

Notable changes from earlier drafts

  • Early versions of AB 291 would have required courts to automatically order sealing of records when charges were dismissed or a person was acquitted and would have allowed sealing petitions in certain declined-prosecution cases after time limits (e.g., 8 years). Those automatic-sealing provisions were removed by later amendments (Assembly Amendment No. 204 and subsequent reprint). The reprint deletes Section 1 (the automatic sealing mandate) and narrows the bill’s focus to the prohibition on considering sealed proceedings in later sealing petitions.

Who is affected

  • Individuals with sealed records: strengthens the effect of sealing by limiting courts’ ability to consider the sealed proceedings in future sealing petitions.
  • Courts and prosecutors: changes the factual record available to courts in sealing decisions and may affect prosecutorial arguments and ability to oppose sealing petitions.
  • Public transparency interests and victims: may reduce access to information previously considered in evaluating petitions.
  • State and local governments: bill notes possible fiscal impacts for courts/agencies implementing sealing-related procedures.

Support and opposition (recorded testimony)

  • Support: civil-rights and reentry organizations (NAACP, PLAN, Battle Born Progress) argued the bill promotes rehabilitation, reduces stigma, and prevents sealed proceedings from undermining sealing protections.
  • Opposition: city attorneys, law-enforcement and prosecutorial representatives raised constitutional concerns about automatic or broad sealing, public access to court records, potential impacts on prosecutions, and logistical/administrative challenges. Legal commenters cited case law emphasizing individualized balancing before sealing records.

Procedural timeline / next steps

  • Introduced Jan 22, 2025. Amended multiple times in Assembly committees; passed Assembly (third reading May 23, 2025).
  • Referred to Senate; considered in several Senate committees and placed on suspense; held under submission Aug 29, 2025.
  • Reprint (first reprint) reflects deletion of automatic-sealing provisions and focuses on amendment to NRS 179.295; applies to petitions filed on/after Oct 1, 2025.

Practical effect

If enacted in its reprinted form, AB 291 would make sealing more protective for individuals by preventing courts from using sealed proceedings as evidence against them when deciding later sealing petitions for other convictions. This strengthens the legal “closing off” effect of sealing but raises trade-offs concerning public access and prosecutorial/administrative concerns identified in testimony.

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

Sign in to ask a question.