WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 416

Revises provisions concerning access to certain library materials. (BDR 34-925)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Natha Anderson and 4 co-sponsors

AB 416 would have barred most removals or labeling of library materials by officials and shifted challenges to a court obscenity standard, strengthening access and protections for

Vetoed by the Governor.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 416

AB 416 — Revises provisions concerning access to certain library materials (BDR 34‑925)

Status: Vetoed by the Governor (June 11, 2025)
Introduced: February 5, 2025 (sponsored by Assemblymembers Miller, La Rue Hatch, Anderson, Considine; González and Moore)

Main purpose

AB 416 was designed to protect public access to library materials in Nevada schools (and, after amendments, public libraries and institutions of higher education), to protect librarians and other staff from retaliatory action, and to create a judicial process for removing materials deemed obscene rather than permitting ad‑hoc removal or concealment by local officials or employees.

Key provisions and changes

  • Prohibits school boards, charter school governing bodies, school administrators, school employees, volunteers, and (as amended) public‑library governing bodies and certain public entities from limiting access to library materials by:
    • removing materials from a collection or circulation;
    • moving materials to conceal them;
    • labeling materials to indicate they are objectionable; or
    • defacing materials to force removal.
  • Permits content‑neutral rules for time, place, and manner restrictions, safety/security measures, and standard maintenance/deaccessioning (damaged, duplicative, obsolete materials).
  • Employee and volunteer protections: prohibits professional retribution (investigation, demotion, dismissal, involuntary transfer), fines, arrest, or imprisonment for selecting, displaying, or circulating materials that comply with the bill.
  • Judicial removal process: a person meeting certain requirements may petition a court to remove a library item; a court may order removal only if it finds the material meets an obscenity test substantially similar to existing statutory “Miller”‑type criteria (prurient interest, lacking serious value, and patently offensive sexual descriptions).
  • Expansions in amended versions:
    • Extends protections and prohibitions to public libraries and authorizes the Board of Regents to adopt a similar policy for Nevada System of Higher Education institutions.
    • Adds definitions (e.g., “library employee”).
  • Criminal penalties:
    • Creates offenses (punishable as a category E felony) for using force, intimidation, coercion, or undue influence to prevent access to materials or to induce violations of the bill;
    • Creates an offense (category E felony) for disseminating personal/sensitive information (doxxing) of school or library officials, volunteers, pupils, or Regents/institution employees in retaliation for permitting access when the dissemination is done with intent to cause or reckless disregard of likelihood of serious harm (death, bodily injury, stalking).
  • Administrative transparency: requires the maintenance of lists of materials removed by court order and other procedural recordkeeping.

Who is affected

  • Directly: school districts, charter schools, school and public library governing bodies, librarians and library staff, school employees and volunteers, institutions in Nevada System of Higher Education, students, and the public who use library collections.
  • Indirectly: parents and community members (access to challenge materials moves to the judiciary), and law enforcement/courts (potential new criminal cases and civil proceedings).

Procedural and timeline highlights

  • The bill moved through Judiciary, Education and Appropriations committees, was amended (including a First Reprint expanding scope), and passed both houses in 2025. Fiscal notes indicated “No” effect on local government and “Yes” effect on the State (fiscal notes available on NELIS).
  • Enrolled and presented to the Governor; final action: vetoed by the Governor on June 11, 2025, so the measure did not become law.

Stakeholder positions (summary)

  • Supporters argued the bill protects intellectual freedom, librarians, and marginalized voices; supporters included librarians, authors groups, American Booksellers for Free Expression, NSEA, and various advocacy organizations.
  • Opponents raised concerns about parental oversight, local control, judicialization of disputes, burdens on families (cost/time to litigate), and criminalization of public complaint. Opponents included some parent organizations and business/community groups.

Practical implications (if enacted)

  • Would substantially limit administrative or board‑level removal/labeling of library materials based on content, shifting most content challenges to the courts under an obscenity standard.
  • Would create stronger legal protections for librarians and library staff but also expose some protestors or retaliators to criminal liability in certain circumstances.
  • Potential state fiscal impacts from enforcement and court caseloads; local governments reported no direct fiscal effect.

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

Sign in to ask a question.