Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo is celebrating the passage of his wide ranging tough on crime bill.

The former Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department sheriff called a special legislative session to get it through and on social media, called it the strongest public safety reform package Nevada has delivered in a generation.

The bill's key components include reestablishing a resort corridor caught specifically for crimes committed on the Las Vegas Strip, and increasing penalties for assaults on hospitality workers, for DUIs, in deadly crashes, and for retail thefts involving property damage.

There are also provisions expanding what constitutes stalking and domestic violence.

But the Republican governor did make concessions regarding immigration, most notably when the democratically controlled legislature returned his bill with an amendment prohibiting school districts from allowing law enforcement like Ice on school campuses without a lawful order.

He went ahead and signed it despite vetoing a similar measure in the regular session.

The bill goes into effect at the start of next year.

And here to explain their votes on it are Nevada Assemblyman Joe Van Jackson, a Democrat representing district six, and Nevada Assemblywoman Lisa Kolbe, a Republican representing district four.

Thank you both for joining us.

That was a long list of what that bill includes.

Assemblywoman, I want to start with you.

You voted for it.

Why?

So I think you did a really good job of summarizing most of the key parts of it.

It did a lot of other things as well.

It's I think, what, 50 or 60 some pages and some 73 pages.

And there were actually a lot of provisions that were stricken from it in the original bill.

But, I voted for it because at the end of the day, when we were out there knocking and talking to voters in our districts, we all heard that crime was a big issue for people.

And so this was an important thing for me to say.

We need to do something about this and to stand behind our governor and, and really try to protect, Okay.

Assemblyman Jackson, this bill did have bipartisan support, but you voted against it.

Why?

In 2019, we passed AB 236, which was a smart on crime approach.

It was evidence based.

It was data driven.

It was uplifted by the community.

There was community involvement.

This legislation actually reduce crime.

And this legislation actually saved the state millions of dollars.

I feel that this crime bill doesn't do that.

I feel that it's not evidence base, that there's not enough data back, in the bill and that there are other ways to deter crime, like investing in resources, investing in mental health, investing in housing, housing.

So those are, my main reasons for voting no on the bill.

And you come at this from a unique perspective in that you are believed to be the first formerly incarcerated person to be a lawmaker in the state of Nevada.

What do you think this bill does for the issue of prisons and overpopulation?

I think this bill doesn't address the root causes.

Like you said, I'm the first formerly incarcerated person to be elected official.

That means I have lived experiences.

When I went through my incarceration, through my crisis, I was dealing with mental health issues.

And I know if there was more resources, more places for me to go get free mental health services, that would deter me from committing a crime.

Getting the help that I need, would have prevented me from committing a crime.

Not necessarily harsher penalties or, Felony offenses, being charged to my record.

That would not deter me from a crime, but actually providing resources in the community.

That's why I think is efficient.

The smash and grab that is the retail theft that involves property damage as well.

And that will be a category C felony and ultimately lead to more people going into the prison system.

However, the state argues that this bill will also end up saving the state money.

How is that Assemblywoman?

Absolutely.

And so there is a provision in the bill that we haven't discussed yet, which is a provision about early release.

So it is a look at somebodys, criminal history and where they are in the prison system.

How much time they've served, have they done all of the good things and, you know, worked programs inside and maybe they're working a trade program.

And giving them an opportunity to get out early.

And so there will be an offset there.

And then I think one of the other things that you have to consider in law, and I'm an attorney, I know we haven't talked about backgrounds, but I'm an attorney.

And one of the things that you learn is criminal laws have a very important deterrent effect.

And so what I would say is that it doesn't necessarily mean that more people will go to jail or prison because of this bill.

They just don't have to commit the crime.

Assemblyman Jackson, do you want to respond to that?

Thank you for the question.

The smash and grabs are a concern in the community, and I feel obviously, these individuals are having some type of financial burden and invest in some type of, you know, workforce.

Job creation will be a better solution.

Placing a felony on their record is only going to make it more difficult for them to find employment.

Some of them.

What did you think about the resort corridor aspect?

I know most of the people arrested in that area are people that are experienced homelessness houses in this.

And it is unfortunate that we have normalized criminalizing the homeless for not having a home.

And I think, moreover, it's, a waste of taxpayer dollars because when you arrest someone for being a homeless, it just creates a revolving door.

We arrest these individuals for being houseless, for not having a home, and then we literally spend hundreds of dollars that they're in jail.

You know, wasting taxpayer dollars.

And then they're released to the same environment, and the cycle just repeats.

I don't think that it's an either or situation, right.

Like, I think that we need to have the increased penalties and we have that now.

And we also do need to make investments into mental health and helping people.

The the intent of the the order out corridor in the court is not really to focus on the unhoused.

I mean, certainly there will be some people that that get swept up into that.

But the focus is really on the repeat offenders.

It's the people that and there have been documented, provable instances of somebody violating and trespassing 700 times, like one person 700 times.

It's that kind of repeat situation that they were trying to address.

And that is, you know, a trespass seems like it's a no big deal.

Right?

But the trespass was a result of something else that happened.

They were maybe assaulting or, yelling at somebody, a patron, a hospitality worker.

It was it was a big situation.

Right.

And you have to look at that context.

But I completely agree with you.

We need to do more on mental health.

So we should bring a bill together.

I would love that.

Last topic, Assemblywoman, for you for your thoughts on the governor signing this bill that included the immigration measure I mentioned that prohibits law enforcement from going onto a school campus without a lawful order.

Right.

And I appreciate the question.

I would so you had mentioned that in the regular session, this bill did come forward, and, the governor had vetoed it.

Right?

I was a no on the vote.

I think it was a pretty straight line.

A Republican.

No.

In large part, I was concerned about the expansion, what the federal government was doing already.

Right.

So a lawful order or a warrant going into into a school building is what the federal law was doing, and it was expanding that to also include the school grounds.

I think what's important for us to realize is, is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn't go into the school to capture a child, right?

Like, it sounds like school must be a child.

It's not necessarily anything to do with the child.

It could be a person that's working there, and it could be a person that's been working there.

And they have a violent criminal past against children.

And so I think it's really important for us to work, in concert with law enforcement.

I know that the governor's team worked very hard to get out of the quote unquote, sanctuary state situation.

And that involved a memorandum of understanding with the federal government.

And as I understand it, the governor's team worked really hard to make sure that this bill, the section that was amended in, did not go against what that MOU said.

So I think that we should be able to stay within that non sanctuary state status, which is important for us.

Assemblyman, I respect the Assembly woman's perspective.

I will say that we have a federal administration that has been making their own rules, and I think it's important that we protect our children as school.