The Senate Judiciary Committee heard Assembly Bill 91, a bill to authorize a "second look" review that would let the state Board of Parole Commissioners consider parole for some people serving lengthy sentences for category A and B felonies after they have served a specified portion of their term.

Erica Roth, Assembly District 24, presented the bill and said it would allow the parole board to grant a review for people who (1) are not serving a death sentence, (2) have served at least 10 years of their minimum aggregate sentence and (3) do not pose a significant risk to public safety. Roth said the measure implements recommendations from a joint interim judiciary committee and expands an existing geriatric‑parole type review, arguing it recognizes rehabilitation and changing scientific understanding of adolescent brain development. "This just allows the parole board to take a second look at the specific facts of a case that may warrant the changing of a sentence," Roth said.

Key provisions described in the hearing record include a 10‑year minimum served requirement for review eligibility, procedures for initiating a review by written application (by inmates, attorneys, family members or other representatives), a 15‑day verification window for the board to confirm eligibility and a required hearing process similar to regular parole hearings. The bill also proposes expanding eligibility for parole under an existing juvenile provision from offenses committed before age 18 to those committed before age 25, and makes the relevant provisions retroactive to offenses committed on or after Jan. 1, 2026. If denied, an applicant must generally wait 24 months before reapplying unless the board or the Department of Corrections authorizes otherwise.

Supporters — including formerly incarcerated people, family members, criminal‑justice advocates, the Fines and Fees Justice Center, Families Against Mandatory Minimums and the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty — urged the committee to pass the bill as a measured mechanism to address excessive sentences, reduce incarceration costs and reunite families. A number of witnesses recounted personal experiences of rehabilitation and urged the committee to allow the parole board discretion to consider changed behavior and community support.

Opponents included the Clark County District Attorney's Office, the Nevada District Attorneys Association, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association and city representatives. John Jones of the Clark County District Attorney's Office argued AB 91 would "destroy truth in sentencing" by creating parole eligibility after 10 years for offenses that judges or juries imposed much longer terms for; he said the bill effectively makes life‑without‑parole sentences subject to administrative review and would cause victims to receive parole hearing notices years after a judge told them a defendant would never be released. "If AB 91 passes, life without the possibility of parole would no longer exist in the state of Nevada," Jones said.

Nevada District Attorneys Association counsel Jennifer Noble emphasized concerns about the bill's breadth and the potential for repeated petitions: multiple classes of people may file petitions (including family members and third parties), hearings could occur every two years, and the statutory factors the board must consider do not expressly require assessment of the crime's facts and proportionality. Noble provided two case examples from Nevada — a multidecade aggregate sentence for child sexual abuse and a 36‑to‑life sentence for a child homicide — and noted both would be eligible for review after 10 years under the bill's current language.

Neutral witnesses included parole and probation leadership and the chairman of the Board of Parole Commissioners. Tamra Jackson, Chief of Parole and Probation at the Department of Public Safety, testified in a neutral capacity and said the department provided updated fiscal notes based on amended language. Board Chair Chris DeRico said his board believes in second chances and that, if given authority, the parole board would be positioned to review cases; he warned the bill's interplay with other sections (including the juvenile provision) warrants careful drafting.

Committee members pressed over several points: whether the board would be acting outside its intended role, how the standard compares to regular parole, whether violent offenders and those convicted of crimes against children could become eligible, and how victims would be notified and protected from repeated retraumatization. Several senators expressed concern about removing judicial finality and about giving an unelected board authority to alter sentences set by judges or juries. Supporters replied the bill does not guarantee release, leaves the parole board discretion, and mirrors processes already used in geriatric parole and the pardons process.

The hearing concluded after extensive testimony. The committee did not adopt final action on AB 91 at the hearing; sponsors and stakeholders indicated remaining drafting and fiscal issues to resolve.