The Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections voted 4–1 to recommend Assembly Joint Resolution 7, a proposed constitutional amendment to create an independent commission that would study and set pay and benefits for Nevada state legislators and constitutional officers.

Assemblymember Howard Watts, sponsor of AJR 7, told the committee the amendment would remove the conflict of legislators setting their own compensation. "This measure would amend the Nevada State Constitution to create an independent commission charged with, studying and setting the pay and benefits for state legislators as well as constitutional officers," Watts said. He told the panel the change would move the decision away from the legislature and into a commission with members from the public, nonprofit, for-profit and labor sectors and that elected officials, public employees, lobbyists and immediate family members would be barred from service on the commission.

The measure, as Watts explained, would require approval in two consecutive legislative sessions and then a vote of the people before taking effect; if approved, the first schedule of pay and benefits from the commission would be provided in 2031. Watts also cited a National Conference of State Legislatures finding that roughly half of U.S. states use some form of compensation commission.

Supporters who testified said the current system discourages people from running for the Legislature and that the commission would increase transparency and fairness. Tom Clark of the Reno-Sparks Chamber told the committee, "This resolution is is very, very important." Amber Joyner, a former assemblymember who testified personally, described the financial strain of serving without employer-provided health insurance and said, "the salary and health insurance compensation for legislators needs to be examined by a fair and independent entity." Emily Persaud Zamora of Silver State Voices said the proposal would reduce an "undeniable conflict of interest" and increase public input and transparency.

A small number of supporters called attention to past reviews of legislative compensation: Watts referenced a 1988 Blue Ribbon Commission and a 1995 review that recommended changes but were not adopted; David Goldwater and others described the proposal as a governance modernization. Supporters also noted the commission would hold public meetings across the state to solicit feedback.

A caller in opposition, Oscar Williams, said the proposal "concentrates power into an appointed body that is handpicked by the governor" and expressed concern about moving authority from the legislature to an appointed commission.

The committee’s “do pass” recommendation sends AJR 7 toward the full Senate; because the measure is a constitutional amendment, it must be passed by the Legislature in two consecutive sessions and then approved by voters to take effect. Committee discussion included clarification that the amendment would not automatically raise or lower pay — the commission could increase, decrease or leave compensation unchanged — and that the commission’s first scheduled report would not take effect until the timeline Watts described.

Votes at a glance:
- AJR 7 — Motion: due pass. Mover: Vice Chair Daley; second: Senator Steinbeck. Outcome: passed 4–1 (Majority Leader recorded a no; Senator Krasner recorded a yes, reserving the right to change her vote on floor). Floor statement assigned to Vice Chair Daley.
- AB 79 — Motion: amend and do pass with two listed amendments. Outcome: passed 3–2 (Senators Krasner and Steinbeck recorded nays). Floor statement assigned to Senator Krasner.
- AB 148 — Motion: amend and do pass (conceptual amendment discussed allowing earlier mail-ballot distribution at voter request). Outcome: passed unanimously. Floor statement assigned to Senator Krasner.
- AB 262 — Motion: do pass. Outcome: passed 3–2 (Senators Krasner and Steinbeck recorded nays; Majority Leader voted yes while reserving the right to change on the floor). Floor statement assigned to the Chair.
- AJR 1 — Motion: move out of committee with no recommendation. Outcome: passed 4–1 (Senator Krasner recorded a nay). Floor statement assigned to the Chair.

What happened next: The committee closed public testimony after hearing callers and in-person speakers, placed AJR 7 on the work session, and voted the recommendation that advances the resolution toward floor consideration. Because AJR 7 is a proposed constitutional amendment, additional legislative action in a subsequent session and voter approval would be required for adoption.