The Nevada Legislature’s special session was adjourned Wednesday night, concluding a week of intraparty disputes, behind-the-scenes negotiations and the deaths of significant pieces of legislation.

In total, Gov. Joe Lombardo signed 13 bills into law. Four other proposals failed to move forward.

The most notable bill deaths were the marquee proposal to vastly expand Nevada’s film tax credit system (AB5) and the last-minute addition to the special session agenda to crack down on corporate homebuying (SB10). 

Still, lawmakers approved other proposals, including Lombardo’s criminal justice package (with late additions to crack down on immigration enforcement at schools) and a new state program to cover federal gaps in funding public safety net programs, such as food stamps.

And in a surprising turn shortly before the session ended, Senate Democrats introduced a measure to codify mail ballot laws in the Nevada Constitution. It quickly passed the Assembly and will now head to the 2027 legislative session, where approval would send it to the voters in 2028. It does not need approval from Lombardo.

The Nevada Independent tracked all of the policies up for debate in this session and summarized what they do and what happened below.

Click on the topic to be taken to that specific section. 

Proposals that did not move forward:

• Film tax credit expansion
• Corporate home buying
• Solo corridor court bill
• Immigration enforcement study

Bills signed by Lombardo:

• Lombardo’s omnibus crime bill
• Health care
• Silver State General Assistance Program
• Appropriations
• Cybersecurity
• School zone safety
• Legislator safety
• Labor compensation 
• Windsor Park
• Car leasing
• Changes to an alcohol-related bill
• Work-related lung disease
• State government operations

Moving to 2027 Legislature:

• Mail ballot constitutional amendment

Proposals that did not move forward

Film Tax Credit Expansion

What would it have done?

• Under AB5, the state would have set aside $120 million in annual transferable tax credits from 2029 to 2044 to film production companies. It would have been a major expansion of the state’s existing film tax credit program, which is capped at $10 million annually. These credits can be transferred (and often are) to other companies in exchange for cash. 

• Proponents said it would have brought in about $11 million annually for pre-K programs in Clark County across the next 17 years. The proposal would have created a new district in Summerlin (where a new film studio would be located) that would funnel certain tax revenues toward the Clark County School District to build up new pre-K programs. 
• An amendment to the bill would have imposed looser workforce diversity requirements for film production companies. It would’ve also funneled certain revenue from room taxes in the Summerlin Studios district for retired state workers who participate in the state’s retirement program.
• The bill required companies to invest an aggregate of $900 million in construction by the end of 2030, in addition to $1.8 billion in capital investment by the end of 2039, in order to receive tax credits. If a project failed to meet these milestones, it could have faced a lien against the remaining undeveloped land.
• Companies also had to make $400 million in capital investment by the end of 2029 and spend $1.5 billion across the 15-year credit period.

What happened during the special session?

• The bill failed to get the necessary majority in the Senate, so it died. Ten out of 21 senators supported it, while three were absent.
• The vote came after a contentious week in which supporters of the proposal tried behind the scenes to convince holdouts to support it. Sources familiar with the negotiations told The Indy that the Senate vote came down to three lawmakers who ultimately voted no: Sens. Edgar Flores (D-Las Vegas), Melanie Scheible (D-Las Vegas) and Angie Taylor (D-Reno).
• The bill narrowly passed out of the Assembly, 22-20. 
• But it almost died before the bill was even heard in a committee. In the opening minutes of the session, Assm. Selena La Rue Hatch (D-Reno) invoked a little-known rule that allows for lawmakers to reject a bill from being considered if a majority agrees. However, that motion needed a majority to pass, but it tied 21-21.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• The special session bill mirrored AB238, which died in the Senate without receiving a vote. The bill, sponsored by Assms. Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas) and Daniele Monroe-Moreno (D-North Las Vegas), had passed 22-20 in the Assembly, with support coming from 15 Democrats and seven Republicans.
• Another film tax credit bill (SB220) sponsored by Sen. Roberta Lange (D-Las Vegas) did not receive a vote in either chamber. 

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• Sony and Warner Bros. backed the proposal. The Southern Nevada Building Trades Unions and Laborers International Union of North America Local 872 were part of a group of unions that put $1 million toward a supportive new PAC.
• Opponents included progressive groups such as Battle Born Progress, the Nevada State Education Association, the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4041. Economists have also largely opposed the viability of the credits.

What effect would it have had on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Proponents said it’s a necessary measure to diversify Nevada’s tourism-dependent economy, particularly amid an economic downturn.
• A state-commissioned economic analysis — conducted before the bill included stricter investment requirements and the money for pre-K programs — found the proposal could generate significant economic activity, but the amount of tax revenue government entities would recoup would fall far short of breaking even with how many tax credits were invested to spur the activity.
• Additionally, an analysis from legislative fiscal staff (with the tax credits accounted for) found the final balance of the state budget in fiscal years 2030 and 2031 would be about $100 million and $260 million, respectively, below the required balance.
• Last month, Jauregui told The Nevada Independent that the special session “is our only shot” to get the bill passed, and that the studios won’t “wait for the state to approve.”

---

Corporate Home Buying 

What would it have done?

• The bill (SB10) — backed by Sens. Dina Neal (D-North Las Vegas) and Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) — would have placed a 1,000-unit annual cap on annual corporate home purchases, an increase from the 100-unit cap that was in a bill from earlier this year. The executive branch instead wanted a 2,000-unit cap, but that proposal never materialized.
• The new bill also exempted property sold by credit unions or ones that the state’s top housing official considers “in the public interest.” Similar to past bills, it also exempted apartments.
• The attorney general’s office would have been responsible for enforcing the provisions.

What happened during the special session? 

• In an unprecedented move, lawmakers added the bill to Lombardo’s special session agenda to revive a bill from the 2025 legislative session.
• The addition came on the final day of the session, and a hearing was quickly held, followed by unanimous approval from the Senate.
• However, in a surprise vote in the final hours of the session, Assm. Alexis Hansen (R-Sparks) voted against the bull, despite signing the petition to add the measure to the sessions’ agenda. All other Republican Assembly members voted against, so the bill failed to receive the required two-thirds majority support.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• A similar version of the bill died in the Senate during the 2025 legislative session after failing to secure the two-thirds vote necessary for proposals that have tax or fee increases
• In a floor speech, Hansen said that he was asked by Lombardo to vote against the measure. Hansen supported the idea in 2023 and later told The Indy his “no” vote was one of his biggest regrets of the 2025 session.
  • “For the first time this session, I have actually been asked by the executive branch to support a caucus ‘no’ position, which I have agreed to do,” Hansen said in a floor speech before voting on the bill in May. 

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• During a bill hearing, it received support from progressive and housing reform groups in addition to Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat.
• Opponents included the Nevada State Apartment Association, the Nevada Home Builders Association and the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association.
• Lombardo vetoed another measure from Neal in the 2023 session to place a 1,000-unit cap, saying it would “remove millions of dollars in commerce tax revenue from businesses engaged in the sale of real estate.”

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Nevada has long struggled with affordable housing supply and ranks second in the country for cost-burdened renters, only behind Florida. 
• Housing costs have also fast outpaced income growth, according to the Guinn Center, a nonprofit research group.
• The UNLV Lied Center for Real Estate found that investors made up 23 percent of home purchases in Las Vegas last year.
• Neal and Ira Hansen said it was necessary to consider the bill in a special session, citing the corporate ownership trend and young people’s difficulty in affording homes. 

Corridor Court

What would it have done?

• SB9 would have reestablished a specialty court program to crack down on crimes occurring around the Las Vegas Strip.

What happened during the special session?

• This bill never progressed through the legislative process, but the same language was included in Gov. Joe Lombardo’s crime bill, which reached his desk.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• Language to bring back the corridor court program was added in the final days of the session to Lombardo’s crime bill (SB457). However, the bill died in the final minutes of the session.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• There was no public discussion on this specific bill during the session. However, the gaming industry is a strong supporter of the court program, which has drawn significant opposition from the Clark County Public Defender’s Office and criminal justice reform groups. 

What effect would it have had on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The death of the bill is likely moot, as long as Lombardo signs his crime bill. 
• However, its introduction was likely a leverage point to bring back the court program in case Lombardo’s crime bill fell apart.

Immigration Enforcement Study

What would it have done?

• ACR5 would have directed lawmakers to study federal immigration activities in Nevada.

What happened during the special session? 

• Although the study was introduced on the first day of the session, it never moved forward after pushback from immigration advocacy groups.
• Community advocates said in a virtual town hall during the session that a study was insufficient. The Nevada Immigrant Coalition also said it was not consulted on the proposal.
• Instead, advocates wanted two immigration-related amendments to be added to Gov. Joe Lombardo’s crime bill that would have required legislative approval of the expansion of civil detention facilities and investigated people who are unidentifiable while acting as law enforcement officers.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• Although a similar kind of study was not proposed, lawmakers sought to crack down on federal immigration activities in Nevada. 
• Assm. Cecelia Gonzalez (D-Las Vegas) introduced a bill that would have prohibited federal agents from enforcing immigration laws on school grounds and school officials from providing student or family information to immigration officers. 
• It passed out of the Legislature with six Republicans in support. But Lombardo vetoed it, saying in his veto message that it was “well-intentioned but fundamentally overbroad.”

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• The proposal never progressed through the legislative process, but immigration advocacy groups said it was not enough.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Because it was a study, there would not have been any legal implications. Instead, it might have provided more information on federal immigration activities in Nevada.

---

Bills signed by Lombardo

Lombardo’s Omnibus Crime Bill

What would it do?

• The omnibus crime bill from Gov. Joe Lombardo — a former Clark County sheriff — tackled many aspects of criminal law, including retail crime and domestic violence. 
• AB4 would implement a corridor court to specifically deal with crime on the Strip — something the casino industry says is key to ensuring tourists and employees find the resort corridor safe and inviting. It would also establish harsher penalties for certain burglaries and a transitional custody program for certain nonviolent inmates that could ease prison crowding.
• An adopted amendment would prohibit school districts and public schools from allowing law enforcement — including federal immigration authorities —  from accessing school grounds without a lawful order except in exceptional circumstances. Lombardo vetoed this idea earlier this year. It would also require detention facilities, such as immigration facilities, in the state to maintain a running list of the people they hold.

What happened during the special session?

• The bill passed the Assembly 31-11 and the Senate 16-2.
• There were some changes throughout the week, including the immigration enforcement amendment. In the final hours of the session, that amendment was tweaked to further clarify when law enforcement might be allowed on school grounds.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• The original bill proposed by Lombardo (SB457) would have seen felony theft charges kick in when items valued at $750 or more are stolen — a lower, stricter threshold than the existing $1,200 — but that section was later replaced by a provision about smash-and-grab burglaries. 
• A series of last-minute amendments to the bill became a major source of concern among legislators and criminal justice reform advocates. Legislators and key stakeholders expressed that they had received little communication on major amendments to the bill (such as the proposed corridor court system) from the governor and the Washoe County district attorney, a major bill supporter.
• The bill died in the final minutes of the legislative session due to a series of procedural delays. It passed the Assembly 36-6 and passed the Senate 20-1 with Sen. James Ohrenschall (D-Las Vegas) as the sole nay vote. The Senate, however, ran out of time to give formal approval to final bill amendments. 

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• The bill was backed by local law enforcement agencies, including the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Washoe County District Attorney’s Office. Public defenders in Washoe and Clark counties as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and NAACP heavily opposed it. 

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Tackling crime has long been a major priority for Lombardo, who spent three decades in law enforcement and is gearing up for his 2026 re-election campaign.
• An initial version of the bill was estimated to cost the state more than $42 million per biennium because of an increase in incarcerated people. Clark County also noted a significant cost because of an increased number of felony cases that public defenders would need to handle. A recent amendment would bring down the price tag, decreasing funding for the Nevada Department of Corrections from nearly $9.5 million to about $4.4 million.
• Still, local courts, such as the Second Judicial District Court, have raised concerns about the proposal, saying that it could overwhelm court resources.
• Proponents feel that the measure has economic stakes. “We have to remember that the Strip is the engine, the major economic engine, for not just Las Vegas, not just the county, but the entire state of Nevada,” Ted Pappageorge, secretary-treasurer of the Culinary Union Local 226, told The Indy in a previous interview.

---

Health care

What would it do? 

• Lawmakers brought back a failed bill from the 2025 legislative session (SB434) to establish a competitive grant program aimed at addressing health care provider shortages in the form of SB5. 
• A wide swath of health organizations — including facilities that treat alcohol and substance use disorders, higher education programs that provide health care provider training and nonprofits in the health care space — would be eligible to apply for $60 million in grant funding from the state general fund. Lawmakers said they intend to establish a long-term and continued funding source in the future. 
• To be eligible for the grants, applicants must prove that the project increases the number of providers, improves expertise of health care providers, includes measurable outcomes, directly addresses areas of need and, in certain cases, secure funds or in-kind contributions that match the amount of  money it is requesting.
• As part of the legislation, the Nevada Health Authority, which would manage the grant program, would be required to assess the health care needs in Nevada every two years.
• It also includes pieces of wide-ranging legislation originally proposed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo as SB495, specifically provisions to expedite the licensure process for physicians in Nevada and help speed up hospital privileging decisions, a process where a hospital’s governing body authorizes a health care provider to perform a specific scope of practice at its facility.
• An amendment presented at the hearing and approved by the Senate increased the share of funding in the account available to the newly established Nevada Health Authority from 2 percent to 3.5 percent. It also updated Nevada law to allow pharmacists to administer immunizations in accordance with federal standards and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations as of Jan. 1, 2025, along with any future modifications adopted by the State Board of Health.
• Amendments introduced in the Assembly and adopted by a committee added language mirroring the federal Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from paying for abortions. The Hyde Amendment does have exceptions for allowing federal funding to cover abortions in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. The amendment ensures that entities offering reproductive care that does not include abortion services, such as cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infection testing or birth control, are eligible to receive funding from the grant program if they lost funding as a result of the federal reconciliation bill passed this summer.
• The adopted amendments also made some adjustments to credentialing decisions for health care providers.

What happened during the special session?

• The Senate passed the bill on the first day of the session, 15-6, with six Republicans in opposition over concerns that the grant program would inadvertently fund abortions and circumvent provisions in the federal HR1 budget bill, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Proponents said an amendment presented in the Assembly addressed concerns about funding abortions.
• The Assembly did not pass the bill until the final hours of the session — it passed unanimously — and the Senate then agreed with the changes made on the Assembly side.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• SB434, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas), received bipartisan support in both chambers, but it did not reach Lombardo’s desk because of a last-minute amendment changing the process to fund the grant program.
• The Assembly unanimously passed the amended version of the bill with less than nine hours to go before the session ended, but it needed (and failed to get) final approval from the Senate. 
• On the last day of the 120-day session, the governor’s health care bill passed on a party-line 13-8 vote with all Republicans in opposition over another last-minute amendment that included controversial limitations surrounding freestanding emergency rooms.
• The bill failed to receive the required support of two-thirds of Assembly members to waive rules on the proposal — which would have allowed them to vote on the proposal immediately — so the bill died.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• There was wide support from Nevada’s health care community. Supporters included HCA Healthcare, which runs the Sunrise Hospital and Sunrise Children’s Hospital, the Nevada Hospital Association and the Nevada Rural Hospital Partners Foundation. UNR, the Las Vegas Chamber, Children’s Advocacy Alliance and the Nevada Primary Care Association also backed the legislation.

• Representatives from Nevada Right to Life said they appreciated the bill but objected to the bill’s allocation of funding for programs that lost funding because of HR1, which would likely benefit Planned Parenthood centers in Northern and Southern Nevada offering reproductive health services that do not include abortions.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Proponents said the program would allow the state to make progress in addressing its health care provider shortage, a long-running bipartisan priority.
• Lombardo said the special session would focus on completing “unfinished business” from the 2025 Legislature. The final changes to Cannizzaro’s bill represented an apparent deal related to Lombardo’s own health care bill, and the merger in the form of SB5 reflects a joint effort from the Senate majority leader and the governor.

---

Silver State General Assistance Program

What would it do? 

• SB3 establishes the Silver State General Assistance Program as a way to address gaps in federal support for public safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
• The program within the Division of Social Services of the Department of Human Services would be allowed to provide temporary financial or in-kind assistance to individuals or households experiencing “extraordinary circumstances.”
• Those circumstances are defined as an event or situation that creates a need for state intervention to protect the health, safety or general welfare of residents, including the disruption of federal benefits.
• The funding mechanism works by authorizing the transfer of funds from the unrestricted balance of the state general fund under strict conditions, including a governor’s declaration of an extraordinary circumstance and that the transfer would not put the ending balance of the unrestricted state general fund below 5 percent. 
• An adopted amendment deleted specific allocations for SNAP because of the end of the federal shutdown and the resumption of benefits. Supporters have said the program implemented by the bill would address future stoppages should they occur.
• Officials said the bill was written purposefully to be flexible. It could be for SNAP recipients or it could be set up to provide cash or in-kind assistance based on the extraordinary circumstances under consideration.

What happened in the special session?

• Both chambers unanimously passed the proposal.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• This legislation is a new proposal aimed at ensuring that Nevada has a mechanism to fill gaps if federal support falters.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• Children’s Advocacy Alliance, various food assistance organizations, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Local 4041 and other community organizations. There is no known opposition to the legislation.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The legislation is aimed to establish a way to ensure Nevadans receive supportive services and assistance from existing programs, even if federal support fluctuates. Under existing law, no such mechanism exists, which led to an inability to help families afford groceries as SNAP benefits were cut off during the federal shutdown.

---

Appropriations

What would it do?

• SB4 would make tens of millions in appropriations to a wide variety of programs, such as for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) administration and behavioral health programs in prisons. 
• The SNAP allocations include $19 million to shore up funding burdens based on federal program changes. Starting in October 2026, states will have to cover 75 percent of SNAP administrative costs — up from the current level of 50 percent — and this allocation will cover those costs through June 2027.
• There is also a roughly $2.5 million appropriation to reduce the amount of errors in the state’s SNAP program by diverting more resources toward data analytics and verifying an applicant’s income level. Starting in October 2028, states with an error rate of at least 6 percent will have to cover a share of benefit costs, and the state hopes this funding will reduce the state’s error rate — usually hovering around 6 percent — by about 2 percentage points.
• Amendments to the bill added a $68.5 million appropriation for a life sciences building at UNR and changed the source of funding the construction from bonds to the state budget. 
• Lawmakers also authorized an additional $68.5 million for the UNR building and $106.5 million for UNLV’s building, but these allocations would come from outside sources, not state coffers.
• The amendments also deleted a $7.3 million appropriation to replenish the balance of the state’s disaster relief account and added $5.6 million in funding for a Clark County jail-based mental health program. 
• The bill would also replenish the Interim Finance Committee’s Contingency Account, which typically covers requests for necessary expenses that the Legislature either did not fund or inadequately funded.

What happened in the special session?

• The bill passed the Senate, 15-5, and the Assembly, 30-7. Only Republicans opposed it.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• During the 2025 session, lawmakers appropriated more than $12 billion to state agencies through the appropriations bill (AB591). 
• That bill appropriated about $358 million toward UNR as well as $2.6 billion to the Nevada Health Authority, which houses Medicaid and the newly created Office of Mental Health. 

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• During an initial bill hearing on SB4, legislators raised minimal concerns about funding to UNR besides questions if expenses could further increase down the line, in part because of tariffs. 
• Legislators have previously raised concerns about providing more funding to the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) as the agency has faced multiple recent multimillion-dollar budget shortfalls. 

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Several of the issues in SB4, such as increased food assistance, arose after the 2025 legislative session ended. 
• During recent meetings of the Interim Finance Committee, which is responsible for approving state agency funding when the Legislature is out of session, the NDOC has raised concerns about medical and drug abuse problems in the prison system. 
• The bill would also increase the maximum salary of the state chief information officer, following a cyberattack discovered in August that crippled state systems. 

---

Cybersecurity

What would it do?

• AB1 creates the Security Operations Center, which would provide cybersecurity services to state agencies and elected officials. This center would monitor infrastructure, mitigate threats and provide incident responses.
• The center would develop policies to combat cyber threats against state agencies, protect sensitive data and ensure a fast response to a cybersecurity incident. If an agency that uses the center’s assistance does not follow these policies, it might be subject to additional oversight or an audit.
• The center must also submit an annual report to the governor and Legislature.
• A new financial account would be used to bankroll the initiative. The bill allocates about $10 million to cybersecurity initiatives for the Governor’s Technology Office, which oversees cybersecurity efforts.
• Depending on whether funding is available, the bill would also require the center to collaborate with the state higher education system to create a program for students interested in a cybersecurity or computer science career. 
• An amendment to the bill adds that certain cybersecurity-related meetings and records are not subject to the state’s Open Meeting Law or Public Records Act.

What happened during the special session?

• The bill passed both chambers unanimously on the third day of the session.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• The proposal is similar to AB432, a bill proposed by Assm. Toby Yurek (R-Henderson) that would have also created a Security Operations Center. It stalled in committee without receiving a floor vote.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• It received support from the Nevada System of Higher Education and UNLV.
• There was no opposition testimony.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Proponents said it would provide necessary protections to the state’s cybersecurity infrastructure, especially after a massive cyberattack crippled state systems for weeks beginning in late August.
• A report about the attack and its response highlighted the importance of a Security Operations Center and continued efforts from the Legislature to boost cybersecurity initiatives.

School Zone Safety

What would it do?

• AB6 would implement several measures to increase road safety in and around school zones, such as harsher penalties for certain traffic violations. 
• The bill requires a local government or the Department of Transportation to specify when drivers may legally make U-turns, pass other vehicles or drive at certain speeds. 
• It also mandates that a local government or the Department of Transportation establish standards for the design and maintenance of school zone signs. It allows collaboration with law enforcement and other entities on those standards. 
• An amendment to the bill would have prohibited school directories from publishing any information other than their name, grade and photograph, and that school districts cannot release any student’s personally identifiable information unless required by law.
• However, when lawmakers voted on the amendment, legal staff noted it could be subject to constitutional challenges on the grounds that it goes outside the scope of the special session.
• Senators eventually watered down the amended language to only prohibit school districts from disclosing a student’s phone number or address. 

What happened during the special session?

• The bill passed both chambers unanimously.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• There were few bills dealing with school zone safety during the 2025 session. AB402, which would allow school districts to use school bus infraction detection systems to enforce laws against passing stopped school buses, failed to pass, never receiving a hearing in the Senate. 

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• Several groups came out in support of the bill, including the Nevada Urban Consortium, Nevada Association of Counties and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. 
• Officials from the Clark County School District (CCSD) have also pushed for increased traffic safety measures around schools. 

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The bill follows several high-profiles deaths of school-aged children who were hit by drivers in school zones this fall. CCSD Superintendent Jhone Ebert told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in October that 84 students have been hit by cars on their way to and from school this school year, more than double the 39 such accidents from the same time last year.
• Proponents of the bill contend that clearer regulations from the bill will give law enforcement agencies stronger enforcement tools to handle traffic violations. 

---

Legislator Safety

What would it do?

• AB3 would allow any elected official or appointed public official to make their personal records held by the secretary of state or county or city clerk confidential, as well as request that their driver’s license display an alternate address. Under existing law, this applies to many other officials, including judges, peace officers, firefighters and providers of reproductive health and gender-affirming care.
• Candidates who make these requests would also be allowed to keep their declarations of candidacy and residency confidential.
• The bill would also allow campaign expenses to include money used for personal security purposes. Any such expenses must be disclosed on a candidate’s campaign finance report.

What happened in the special session?

• It passed both chambers, near-unanimously with all but Assms. Brian Hibbetts (R-Las Vegas) and P.K. O’Neill (R-Carson City) in support.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• There was no discussion on this issue during the 2025 Legislature.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• There was no support or opposition testimony in either bill hearing.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The bill would bolster security protections for elected officials and ensure that political candidates will not have to use their own money to bankroll personal security expenses.
• The proposal comes two months after Nevada lawmakers received email threats in the wake of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. 
• Lawmakers also took heightened security measures after the June assassination of a Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband. Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas) told The Nevada Independent at the time that she was working with legislative police to ensure legislator safety.

---

 Labor compensation 

What would it do?

• SB8 would incorporate certain federal regulations, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Portal-to-Portal Act, on compensable work. 
• The bill follows a Nevada Supreme Court decision in late October stipulating that state wage laws do not incorporate the federal Portal-to-Portal Act. That lawsuit dealt with Amazon employees not being compensated for pre-shift COVID-19 screenings.
• The Portal-to-Portal Act provides that employers are not required to pay for time employees spend on activities that are “preliminary” or “postliminary” to their principal work duties, such as voluntary training programs.  
• SB8 clarifies that employers still must pay employees during trial periods or when putting on a uniform. 
• However, this provision does not apply to employees who are not covered by certain state minimum wage statutes, such as cab drivers or certain service employees who make more than 1.5 times the minimum wage. 

What happened during the special session?

• It passed both chambers with six Democrats voting against it. 

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• There was no activity on the issue during the 2025 session.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• The bill was backed by the Nevada Resort Association alongside several casinos, including MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment, who emphasized the bill would protect employers from substantial financial exposure.
• During its initial hearing, the measure faced opposition from the Nevada Justice Association, a nonprofit group of trial lawyers.  
• Assm. Selena La Rue Hatch (D-Reno), one of the six lawmakers to oppose the bill, said in floor remarks that she believed it would result in increases in wage theft and workers being asked to do unpaid labor.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Unlike the Portal-to Portal Act, Nevada law currently does not include a blanket statute regarding non-compensable activity. 
• The Nevada Justice Association raised concerns that the bill could allow employers to require employees to perform work activities that may not be paid.
  • “If an employer would require an employee to open up a store in the morning … turn on the lights and boot up all the computers as a bank teller, the Portal Act would call it the question of whether that activity is compensable,” Joshua Buck, an attorney with Thierman Buck, said. 
• Virginia Valentine, Nevada Resort Association president, said that without the measure, resorts would likely be forced to cut certain workplace benefits, such as complimentary meals.

---

Windsor Park

What would it do? 

• In his special session proclamation, Gov. Joe Lombardo referred to legislation that passed in the 2023 legislative session (SB450) to relocate residents of the Windsor Park neighborhood in North Las Vegas. The historically Black subdivision has become dilapidated because of the sinking of the ground.
• A bill to build off of that legislation (SB393) failed to pass this year, which the special session proposal (SB6) largely mirrors. One difference is the previous bill would have allocated $26 million, while the new one sets aside $25 million. The new bill also allows anyone living in Windsor Park on Dec. 31, 2025, to be eligible, rather than the July 1, 2023, eligibility cutoff in the original bill.
• It also provides people who are relocating with an abatement so that their property taxes would remain the same in their new residence and exempts the property transactions from the real property transfer tax.
• Property eligible for the relocation must be owned by families, not the City of North Las Vegas, according to the bill.

What happened during the special session?

• It easily passed chambers, with only Sens. Jeff Stone (R-Henderson) and Robin Titus (R-Wellington) in opposition. Titus opposed the bill because of the price tag and money already allocated to the initiative.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• SB393 passed both chambers, but a last-minute amendment did not receive necessary approval from the Senate on the chaotic final day. The bill received only Democratic support in the Assembly and had bipartisan support in the Senate.
• Legislative sources told The Nevada Independent at the time that the Senate intended to approve the final amendment, but the clock ran out on the session.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• The hearing for the latest bill included emotional testimony from Windsor Park residents — who described increasingly uninhabitable living conditions and a lack of assistance — and other support testimony from progressive groups, such as the Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition and Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.  
• There was no opposition testimony in the first hearing on SB6, but five Republican senators opposed the bill during the 2025 legislative session. In floor remarks, Senate Minority Leader Robin Titus (R-Wellington) said the bill was a “fiscal boondoggle,” referring to the amount of money already allocated to the project and the state’s precarious budget situation.
• Charlie Donohue, the administrator of the Division of State Lands, testified in neutral on the bill, asking for clarity on the plan to create a park in place of residences once they are demolished, which he said would be a heavy lift for his agency. He said the division was not consulted on the bill.
  • An amendment to the bill clarifies that the division would not have to own or develop the land associated with the public park.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• Sen. Dina Neal (D-North Las Vegas), the bill’s sponsor and longtime advocate for Windsor Park residents, said it is about righting historical wrongs.
  • “The bill is trying to focus on providing justice to families who were left by their own city, and they waited for them to die. All they did was fight those families tooth and nail,” Neal said earlier this year.
• Sources previously told The Indy that Lombardo had intended to sign SB393 bill if it reached his desk. Supporters of the bill also noted that additional funding is necessary for all families to be relocated.

---

Car Leasing

What would it do?

• SB1 allows rental car companies to require proof of insurance as a condition for leasing a car. Existing law mandates the companies to have this requirement.

What happened during the special session?

• The bill passed both chambers unanimously.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• The existing law stems from the passage of SB194 during the 2025 Legislature.
• Before that bill passed, state law prohibited rental car companies from denying a rental car if the renter refused to buy insurance or did not have insurance. However, smaller rental companies wanted there to be an option to deny providing the rental cars without insurance.
• But the bill mistakenly required this denial, rather than allowing it as an option.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• During the bill hearing, it received support from the Vegas Chamber and the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The bill would give rental companies more leeway in whether it must require proof of insurance before leasing a car.
• Warren Hardy, a lobbyist representing Enterprise Holdings, said in the bill hearing that it is a “cleanup” to fix the 2025 bill.

---

Alcohol Bill Changes

What would it do? 

• The Legislature passed a bill this session (AB404) that would allow craft breweries in Nevada to sell their products at two additional retail taprooms they own (where the alcohol is not brewed), as long as the process goes through a wholesaler.
• However, an amendment to the bill changed the payment rules for all interactions between a retailer and wholesaler. It required payments from retailers to be made through an electronic fund transfer, during which the wholesaler has to initiate the withdrawal from the retailer’s bank account.
• The payment rules were meant to limit cash transactions — and protect drivers from potentially being victims of robbery — but concerns arose from gaming companies, which play the role of retailers in these arrangements. These companies often contract with third parties to manage transactions with distributors, and they worried the new electronic fund transfer requirement could result in these contractors gaining unauthorized access to the companies’ financial accounts. Gaming companies were also concerned that the change would lead to confusion and high implementation costs.
• In the special session, lawmakers considered AB2 to exempt non-restricted companies from the payment rules. These are entities with more than 15 slot machines — such as large-scale gaming companies — but do not include typical restaurants or bars. The bill would also exempt other entities that are an affiliate of non-restricted companies.

What happened during the special session?

• It passed both chambers, with three Republicans in opposition.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• AB404, sponsored by Assm. Howard Watts (D-Las Vegas), passed unanimously in the Assembly and with all but two senators in support. 
• Despite the near-unanimous approval, the bill process was contentious, with particular opposition from the Nevada branches of the Teamsters union, which represents truck drivers.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• Gaming companies and alcohol distributors are supporting the change.
• The Nevada Restaurant Association opposed the bill, arguing the payment rules would still disadvantage smaller businesses that are not exempt from AB404. The Retail Association of Nevada was also in opposition in part because they did not believe the impetus for the original change — the risk of cash payments — was warranted. The association proposed an amendment to eliminate the electronic payment requirement altogether, but it did not go through.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The change will likely safeguard large companies’ financial accounts. It is coming up in a special session to avoid any unintended consequences of the bill, which took effect Oct. 1.

---

Work-Related Lung Disease

What would it do?

• SB7 would clarify what constitutes a work-related injury for lung disease suffered by a firefighter, arson investigator or police officer.
• Existing law states the disease is “conclusively presumed” to be work-related if the person had been working for two years uninterrupted before the disease.
• This bill clarifies that the disease does not have to be caused by heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas or other noxious gases for it to be considered a work-related injury.
• This new definition will also apply to claims that have already been filed.

What happened during the special session?

• It passed with 11 Republicans in opposition across both chambers.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• There was no activity on the issue during the 2025 session.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• The bill was backed by local law enforcement groups such as the Public Safety Alliance of Nevada and the Nevada Police Union. It was opposed by the Nevada Urban Consortium as well as the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The bill would expand first responders’ abilities to classify lung disease as work-related. However, it still would require the disease to be caused by heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas or other noxious gases for the worker to be eligible for compensation. 
• The bill is intended to clarify state law after a Nevada Supreme Court ruling from the first day of the special session. The high court affirmed a Henderson correctional officer was not eligible for worker’s compensation because his lung disease was caused by COVID-19, not the existing requirements in state law. Because the officer had worked for more than two years, he had argued that the disease should be “conclusively presumed” to be work-related — and thus, eligible for compensation.
• As a result of the ruling, lawmakers are eyeing the clarifying changes to confirm a lung disease does not have to be caused by heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas or other noxious gases to be considered a work-related injury, but needs those causes to be eligible for worker’s compensation.

---

State Government Operations

What would it do? 

• SB2 is a revised version of AB600, a bill related to state government operations that he vetoed in 2025.
• An amendment to the new bill allocated $2.2 million for legislative security.
• The bill also makes several changes to state government functions, including requiring all proceeds from legislative buildings — including food and souvenirs — go toward the state’s Legislative Fund, an account that bankrolls legislative activities.

What happened during the special session?

• Both chambers passed the bill unanimously.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• Lawmakers unanimously passed the bill, but Lombardo vetoed it, saying a requirement that any state entity be considered part of a branch of state government contradicted a 2024 ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court. The ruling said the Nevada System of Higher Education and its Board of Regents are not tied to a specific branch of state government.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• During a bill hearing, Nevada Policy — a libertarian-leaning think tank that was the plaintiff in the recent Nevada Supreme Court case challenging legislators who were employed as lower-level governmental employees in their private life — testified in support. 
• There was no opposition testimony.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The new funding for legislative security would be able to cover the increase in requests from lawmakers to have security at public events. Several lawmakers received threats in the wake of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and there were discussions about beefing up security following the killing of a Minnesota state lawmaker.

Moving to 2027 Legislature

Mail ballot constitutional amendment

What would it do? 

• In the final hours of the special session, Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas) introduced SJR1, a constitutional amendment to codify mail ballot laws.
• The proposal would add to the state Constitution existing state laws that all registered voters receive a mail ballot, but that voters can opt out of receiving one.
• The constitutional amendment would also expand access to mail ballot drop boxes in the days leading up to Election Day.
• The proposal will now head to the 2027 legislative session. If a majority of lawmakers approves it, voters will decide its fate on the 2028 ballot.

What happened during the special session?

• It passed both chambers, with all present Republicans voting in opposition.

What happened on this issue during the 2025 legislative session?

• Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) proposed a bill to increase mail ballot drop boxes, but Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed it, saying the measure “falls short of its stated goals while failing to guarantee appropriate oversight.”
• That policy was then included in a separate bill sponsored by Yeager that would have also established new voter ID requirements in Nevada. However, Lombardo also vetoed that bill, saying it would not do enough to require voter ID.

Who supported it? Did anyone oppose it?

• Because it is not a bill and was introduced at the last minute, there were no bill hearings. 
• Democrats touted it as a way to protect voting access. Republicans voted against it.

What effect would it have on the state? Why did it come up in a special session?

• The bill would make it harder for state lawmakers to overturn existing mail ballot laws. It would also increase voters’ abilities to drop off mail ballots the weekend before Election Day.