WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 218

Requests that the Nevada Supreme Court study and adopt rules governing procedures for notifying defendants and persons who are issued a civil infraction citation of certain information. (BDR S-535)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Cecelia González

AB 218 now asks the Nevada Supreme Court to study court notification practices and adopt rules to improve defendant notices and payment reminders.

(No further action taken.)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 218

Summary — AB 218 (2025) — Court Notification Practices (BDR S-535)

Status: Introduced Jan 8, 2025; Passed Assembly March 20, 2025 (Ayes 53, Noes 17); amended in Assembly (Amendment No. 23) and reprinted April 15, 2025; referred to Senate committees; no further action taken as of June 3, 2025.

Main purpose

AB 218 was conceived to reduce missed court appearances and improve compliance with court payments by improving how courts notify defendants and persons issued civil infraction citations. The bill evolved from a statutory mandate requiring text-message reminder programs to a legislative request that the Nevada Supreme Court study existing practices and promulgate court or administrative rules on notification procedures.

Key provisions (original vs. amended)

  • Original bill (as introduced): Required the State Court Administrator and each court to establish text-message (or alternate-method) reminder programs for criminal defendants, citation recipients, and juveniles. Required:

    • Collection of telephone numbers (including when a child is taken into custody or a person is arrested/issued citations).
    • Automatic enrollment with opt-out; the ability to opt in/out or change number.
    • At least three reminders (7 days, 3 days, 1 day) before hearings, evaluations, or payment due dates; missed-appearance notices.
    • Specific content requirements for notices (date/time/location, consequences of missing court, contact info, links to remote hearing or payment portals).
    • Court Administrator to convene a working group and submit annual program reports (by March 1) with metrics (reminders sent, FTA counts, etc.).
    • Fiscal note flagged possible local and state fiscal impacts and an unfunded mandate (later removed).

  • As amended (Assembly Amendment No. 23 / First Reprint):

    • Removed the statutory mandate and operational requirements.
    • Replaced them with a legislative request that the Nevada Supreme Court:
    • Study notification procedures for defendants and civil infraction recipients (court dates, missed appearances, payments).
    • Consider best practices, stakeholder input, and technological needs.
    • Adopt court or administrative rules to improve notification practices.

Who is affected

  • If the original version had passed: all Nevada trial courts, criminal defendants, persons issued civil infraction citations, juveniles taken into custody, law enforcement (for data collection), and the Office of Court Administrator.
  • Under the amended/reprinted version: the primary actor asked to act is the Nevada Supreme Court (and its Administrative Office of the Courts) to study and adopt rules; trial courts and litigants would be the operational beneficiaries of any rules the Court adopts.

Fiscal and policy considerations

  • Advocacy materials cited potential savings: research-based text reminders can cut failure-to-appear (FTA) rates 20–40% (sometimes higher), and missed court dates are costly (presenter materials cite >$1,400 government cost per missed date).
  • The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) opposed the statutory mandate on separation-of-powers grounds and noted many courts already use text reminders (CourtView system sent ~190,000 texts since 2022). AOC proposed addressing the issue via court rules and/or targeted funding for tech upgrades rather than statute.
  • Amendment No. 23 removed the unfunded mandate language and converted the measure to a respectful request to the Judiciary.

Legislative timeline / next steps

  • Passed the Assembly (3/20/2025); amended in Assembly (4/14/2025); first reprint issued 4/15/2025; sent to Senate committees (Rules; referred to Budget & Fiscal Review). As of the last available update (6/3/2025) no further Senate action had been taken.

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

Sign in to ask a question.