Legislative campaign attacks leading up to the 2024 election circled around a central theme — a “culture of corruption” in Carson City.

Popularized by a pro-Gov. Joe Lombardo political action committee, the phrase stemmed from last-minute “Christmas tree” bills passed during the 2023 legislative session that awarded $110 million to nonprofits and other community groups, some with connections to lawmakers who cast votes. But it quickly ballooned to incorporate other alleged transparency failures, including the Legislature’s exemption from open meeting and public records laws.

Though lawmakers in 2025 were able to pass some transparency laws hyperfocused in certain areas, such as requiring more reporting on school police use of force and creating a public records task force, the vast majority of transparency bills failed to make it across the finish line.

According to a Nevada Independent analysis, 26 bills and resolutions were introduced in 2025 that sought to increase transparency in government and campaigns. Only eight were signed into law by Lombardo.

Transparency on school police use of force

Assm. Cecelia González’s (D-Las Vegas) AB420 requires school districts to annually publish a report related to use of force by school police officers. The report is required to include demographic information for both the student and police officer involved, including whether police officers used pepper spray, batons and/or tasers.

“How often is pepper spray used? How often are batons used? Well, we couldn't answer that question. And so, that's how AB420 came to be,” González said in an interview.

González said the idea for the bill emerged after listening to community outcry for body camera footage after a school police officer pushed a Black student to the ground, placing his knee on the student’s back in 2023. She said the need for transparency became apparent after body camera footage from the incident was withheld from the public and only released after a lawsuit was filed.

“Let's say you're a parent, and this school has reported that they use pepper spray 20 times a month. That would, as a parent, make you ask questions, or maybe you just want to take your child out of [the school] alltogether,” she said. 

The data garnered from annual use-of-force reports can illuminate which schools are lacking mental health resources and inform solutions, she said. The bill passed with some Republican support (36-6 in the Assembly and 15-6 in the Senate). 

David Janovsky, the interim director of the Project on Government Oversight, said annual reports can help prove systemic patterns in school police officers’ use of force  actually exist. At the same time, data from those reports could be used to show that there may not be a systemic problem among school police, Janovsky said.

“The public, fundamentally, has a right to know what they're up to. And so, if that data shows that there are no problems, that's great,” Janovsky said. “Ideally, you build trust by saying, ‘Look, there aren't [any] problems.’”

Public Records Task Force 

Initially inspired by legislation in other states, AB128 was originally introduced to create a public records ombudsman to mediate disputes between requestors and local governments. 

But cities and police departments opposed the bill in a February hearing, saying news organizations may still be litigious and incentivized to recover attorney’s fees instead of opting for mediation. Media representatives were concerned at the time with an elected official — the governor — appointing the ombudsman.

“This did vest a lot of authority in the executive branch in order to determine what was an appropriate public records request,” Nevada Broadcasters Association President Mitch Fox said in an interview. Because media organizations are often involved in a dispute with the government, Fox said it didn’t make sense for another government official to appoint the ombudsman.

Through subsequent amendments, the bill instead created a task force to make recommendations on public records laws. The task force will consist of five transparency advocates and five representatives from governmental entities. 

It passed unanimously out of both legislative chambers.

There wasn’t enough time during session to address all concerns with the bill, said Tray Abney, a lobbyist representing the Nevada Broadcasters Association. He said he hopes the task force clarifies a timeline and process for getting public records, provides more guidance on what a public record is or isn't, and standardizes costs for records. 

Vinson Guthreau, the executive director of Nevada Association of Counties, said public records often come down to time, money and resources. Some requests can take up staff time, when staff members could have other daily responsibilities on top of returning public records requests. 

He said although public records laws in Nevada are relatively robust, there’s still a gray area in determining what is and isn’t a public record.

“I don't think we're going to be very far apart in terms of what we want to achieve,” Fox said, noting that both government and media have an interest in getting information out for the public.

Health insurance data on mental health claims

Freshman Assm. Lisa Cole’s (R-Las Vegas) AB207 was another transparency measure to make it over the legislative finish line. It requires certain information submitted by health insurance companies and Medicaid to the Division of Insurance on denials of mental health claims to be made a public record. 

“There were people who were submitting claims for mental health issues,” Cole said in an interview. “But that information as to why it was being denied was not being transmitted to the Division of Insurance, and so then there's no publicly available data.” 

After the bill passed the Senate and Assembly on a unanimous vote, it was signed into law. 

Having that data publicly available will help psychiatrists understand why claims are denied and help determine whether mental health claims are being denied at higher rates than claims for other medical care, Cole said.

Inaugural committee transparency and stock disclosures

SB414 would have required elected officials to disclose any stock investments of $5,000 or more. State law currently only requires disclosure of investments if an elected official owns more than 1 percent of the company.

Sen. Melanie Scheible (D-Las Vegas) told The Nevada Independent that she introduced the bill to close a loophole where elected officials could own thousands or even millions of dollars worth of stocks in a large company and not be required to disclose that investment because it didn’t amount to one percent of company ownership. 

Meanwhile, the law requires elected officials to disclose ownership stakes in smaller businesses, even if the monetary value of that stake is a much smaller amount.

Another function of SB414 would have required inaugural committees for so-called constitutional officers, such as the governor or attorney general, to adhere to the same reporting requirements as political action committees. Inaugural committees are often created after a candidate wins their election and function as a fundraising tool to cover event expenses.

A version of the bill came in 2023 after Lombardo strayed from tradition by creating a 501(c)(4) nonprofit called Nevada Inaugural Committee, to plan his inaugural ball, which later shifted to running digital ads attacking Democratic lawmakers. The nonprofit can accept unlimited corporate and personal donations without disclosing donors.

As in 2023, the bill advanced through the Legislature on party lines, with Republican lawmakers opposing the bill. Lombardo ultimately vetoed the bill, writing in his veto message that it was “driven by political motives and narrowly focused on a single office.”

SB414 would have applied to “constitutional officers,” including the governor, lieutenant governor, state treasurer, secretary of state, state controller and attorney general.

A spokesperson for the governor’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

“I was hopeful that he would agree with the goals of increasing government transparency, and that he would want to provide voters and constituents with more information instead of less,” Scheible said. 

Lombardo also vetoed a party-line bill (AB490) that sought to move some initiative petitions out of Carson City’s district court, which has no online access to documents or oral arguments.

Read More: A bill sought to take election cases out of Carson City courts. What happened?

What died 

Several proposed constitutional amendments aimed at increasing legislative transparency failed to advance during the session, including AJR2, proposed by Assm. Heidi Kasama (R-Las Vegas) and which would have required proposed bill language available at least 72 hours before a vote. 

Notably, language in the final resolutions lawmakers voted on before session ended in June (SR9 and SCR8) were not publicly available before senators voted on them.

Making bill language available 72 hours before a vote wouldn’t be unrealistic for Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff, said former LCB Director Lorne Malkiewich.

Malkiewich suggested that LCB staff would comply with the rule by moving up deadlines for bill draft requests to begin writing bill language earlier. It might mean fewer bills getting a vote on the floor, he said, but the Legislature is already heading that way with more legislators bringing omnibus bills.

Kasama introduced another bill, AJR3, which would have subjected the Legislature to Nevada’s open meeting and public records law.

Currently, the Legislature is fully exempt from public records requests. Legislative attorneys have argued that legislators would censor themselves instead of fully vetting bills if they knew their communications were subject to public records requests. In 2017, lawmakers gave themselves blanket immunity for any action that falls “within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity” by passing AB496.

Assm. Erica Mosca (D-Las Vegas), who chairs the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, said she didn’t give the two resolutions a hearing because she and Kasama couldn’t reach a compromise within the 120-day session.

A similar resolution, SJR5, also failed to gain traction in the Legislature. Sponsored by Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Henderson), it combined provisions in AJR2 and AJR3 including subjecting the Legislature to Nevada’s open meeting law and requiring bill language to be available 72 hours before lawmakers vote on the bill.

The resolution also would have created a "political practices and enforcement commission,” with the power to interpret campaign finance laws, conduct investigations into any campaign finance law violations and discipline candidates, lobbyists or public officers.

SJR5 died without receiving a hearing.