WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 145

Revises provisions relating to veterans. (BDR 37-77)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Venicia Considine and 11 co-sponsors

AB 145 protects veterans from predatory paid claims help, requires VA accreditation for paid services, enforces penalties for violations, and expands certain state benefits to fami

(No further action taken.)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 145

AB 145 — Summary (2025 session)

Status: Introduced Jan 8, 2025; passed the Nevada Assembly (3/20/2025); amended and reprinted; referred to the Senate. Latest record: “No further action taken” (6/3/2025).

Purpose / Intent

AB 145 is designed to (1) protect Nevada veterans and their families from predatory private actors who charge excessive fees for assistance with federal veterans’ benefits claims, (2) strengthen state hiring and peer-mentoring supports for veterans in state service, and (3) expand certain state benefits (e.g., free state park permits) to immediate family members of service members killed in the line of duty.

Key provisions

  • Accreditation requirement and restrictions on compensated services
    • Prohibits a person from preparing, presenting, prosecuting, advising, consulting, or assisting another person on claims before the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), U.S. Department of Defense, or Nevada Department of Veterans Services if doing so would violate 38 U.S.C. § 5901 or 38 C.F.R. § 14.629 — unless the person is recognized/accredited by the VA.
    • Carves out unpaid assistance (i.e., persons who do not request or accept payment or donation).
    • Provides that the section does not apply to the extent preempted by federal law.
  • Enforcement and remedies
    • Amends NRS 417.137 to make violations subject to civil penalties (Attorney General may recover up to $10,000 per violation with penalty funds deposited to the Gift Account for Veterans).
    • Authorizes aggrieved persons to bring consumer-fraud actions.
  • State employment programs
    • Requires the Division of Human Resource Management (Department of Administration) to employ a Veterans Coordinator.
    • Directs the Division (under that Coordinator) to establish a veteran hiring program (to recruit/retain veterans and spouses) and codifies a peer-mentor program for veterans in state employment; requires annual reporting to the Interagency Council on Veterans Affairs.
  • Benefits expansion
    • Expands eligibility for the free annual state parks permit to include widow/widower, parent, or adult child of a person killed in the line of duty while on active U.S. military service.
  • Other changes and deletions
    • Proposed and later-deleted provisions addressed interment-fee waivers for veterans’ spouses (language removed by amendment).
    • Numerous conceptual and technical amendments were proposed (fee caps, disclosure requirements, bans on international call centers, background checks, criminal penalties), but those varied across amendment drafts.

Who would be affected

  • Veterans, servicemembers, survivors, and military families (direct beneficiaries; also regulated clients).
  • Private companies, consultants, and individuals who provide paid assistance with VA/DoD/NDVS claims (would need VA accreditation to provide compensated claims assistance).
  • Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), accredited claims agents, and attorneys (distinguished from unpaid helpers; many VSOs supported the bill).
  • State agencies (Division of Human Resource Management; Division of State Parks); Attorney General’s office (enforcement).
  • Entities engaged in proposed business-practice reforms (data handling, fee structures) under some amendment drafts.

Policy debates, stakeholder views, and legal concerns

  • Supporters (AARP Nevada, American Legion, VFW, many veterans’ organizations) argued the bill protects veterans from “claim sharks” who charge large, sometimes nonrefundable fees and evade VA oversight.
  • Opponents (some private firms and trade groups) argued the bill would restrict veterans’ choice, hurt legitimate private providers, and could increase burdens on VA/VSOs.
  • Legal counsel (outside memo) warned the accreditation/ban provisions risk federal preemption (conflict with 38 U.S.C.) and possible First Amendment overbreadth challenges; sponsors circulated trigger/preemption language and various narrowing amendments in response.

Fiscal and procedural notes

  • Fiscal impact: bill records indicate “Effect on the State: Yes; Effect on Local Government: No.”
  • Key procedural milestones: introduced and printed Jan 2025; Assembly passage Mar 20, 2025; amendment and reprint (Amendment No. 70 / First Reprint) in April 2025; no further action recorded as of June 3, 2025.

If you want, I can produce a side‑by‑side comparison of the initial text and the final reprint (showing new/deleted language), or extract the versions of Section 1 and the enforcement language across amendments.

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

Sign in to ask a question.