The Republican Club Will Next Meet on July 14

The Republican Club’s next meeting will be on Saturday, July 14, 10:00 a.m., in the Morris Nelson Room, Independence Center. The RCSCA strongly encourages all members to investigate the suggested websites after each article, as there is a great deal of information too detailed for this article. Our speakers will present their thoughts either pro or con on a question. The club does not endorse a side at this writing; we have simply secured speakers who can inform us on the issues. We hope you will join us in the months ahead as we move forward together, learn about the issues and prepare for the November election.

This month our first guest speaker, Lynda Tache’ (pictured right), Political Director for Nevada, will speak to the importance of passing Question 1, Marsy’s Law for Nevada, which seeks to bring victims of crime to the forefront of our judicial system, so they are never forgotten during the legal process, which can be confusing and overwhelming to victims. Lynda sent our group a special message on the importance of support for Marsy’s Law:

"While many of our legal teams and law enforcement already support open communication and consideration for the victims they’re working with, Marsy’s Law would elevate current statutory laws and victims’ rights to make them protected and enforceable in a court of law. Among the rights provided under Marsy’s Law: victims and their families would receive information about their rights and services available to them; they would have the right to be notified of proceedings and developments in the case involving them. They would have the right to receive timely notifications of changes to the offender’s custodial status; victims and their families would have the right to be present at court proceedings and have a reasonable voice when appropriate. They would have the right to provide input to the prosecutor before a plea agreement is finalized; they would have the right to be heard at plea or sentencing proceedings or any process that may result in the offender’s release. They would have the right to timely restitution to a victim as ordered by the judge.

It is important to understand that Mary’s Law seeks to level the playing field so that victims have just as strong and enforceable rights but, does not seek to take away any of the essential rights guaranteed to the accused in any proceeding. Those rights are integral to our legal and democratic process enshrined in the United States Constitution. Marsy’s Law simply asks that victims of crimes receive equal footing and consideration through our legal proceedings.

Implementing Marsy’s Law is a common-sense approach that will benefit individuals & families across our state. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue—Marsy’s Law is a people issue, with concern to public safety, and decency, for those who have been victimized.

We encourage Nevadans to remember to cast a vote for themselves this fall and vote YES on Question 1 and Marsy’s Law for Nevada. We all deserve Marsy’s Law. For more information on Marsy’s Law and a list of current endorsements, please visit Yeson1nv."

Devlin Daneshforouz will speak against passage of Question 3. He is a member of the bipartisan coalition to fight against the measure. This measure has been approved by voters once and requires a second approval.

Opponents of Question 3 point out that many states (including Nevada in the late 1990s) have tried to deregulate their electricity systems without success. In the early 2000s, California’s attempt at deregulation added over $40 billion in costs to consumers. The process has proven to be so unpredictable and unsuccessful that it has been nearly 20 years since any state has tried to deregulate their electrical systems.

Opponents say that if the measure passes, it will place an unpredictable and historically unsuccessful law into the Nevada Constitution meaning it could take at least four years to repeal the question if the result was not what Nevadans envisioned. Others against the measure think that our legislature should handle energy needs and refrain from making it a constitutional issue.

Opponents further state that the language in the bill is without any clear instruction of how the deregulation is to take place or how the new electricity system would work. The state legislature and the courts might end up responsible for deciding a course of implementation, costing taxpayers in Nevada millions.

Opponents also point out that states with even partially deregulated electrical systems, such as Texas, pay much more for electricity than their neighbors in nearby regulated areas. In addition, those against the measure believe that the passage of Question 3 could thwart Nevada’s progress toward renewable energy sources like solar and geothermal power. They say this could increase Nevada’s dependence on fossil fuels.

For more information on the Coalition to Defeat Question 3, entities and individuals supporting a no vote on the measure and a detailed fact sheet against the measure, please visit the website: NOon3.

Bradley Mayer (pictured below), is a partner at Argentum Partners, a Nevada based government affairs firm. He will advocate for the passage of Question 3. Proponents of the measure say consumers will have a choice of power providers from an open electricity market. Proponents of the bill argue that NV Energy has a monopoly on electrical power. They argue that new businesses coming to Nevada are interested in alternative energy sources and are hampered by this monopoly. They believe this negatively impacts job growth in our state, especially in the area of renewable energy development and related technologies.

Advocates say that the increased competition will result in lower electrical bills for consumers. Energy providers would be able to provide energy from any source without needing the approval of the Public Utilities Commission. An open and competitive market would set power rates. The Commission would regulate the competitive market rather than one provider. Consumers (both residents and businesses) would be able to select the energy provider of their choice.

For more information on arguments for the passage of this measure, supporting entities and individuals, please go to