-How Attorney General Aaron Ford says he'll address the state's most pressing issues if he's elected governor, that's this week on Nevada Week.

♪♪ -Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hernstadt and other supporters.

-Welcome to Nevada Week.

I'm Amber Renee Dixon.

Election Day is November 3rd, and early voting in Nevada starts Saturday, October 17th.

Recent polls show a close race for governor.

The incumbent Republican Governor Joe Lombardo faces Democratic challenger Aaron Ford, Nevada's current Attorney General.

Nevada Week invited both candidates to discuss their plans and priorities for the state.

We first made those requests in late August.

Governor Lombardo's campaign informed us Wednesday, October 7th, that he would not participate in an interview.

Attorney General Aaron Ford sat down with Nevada Week on Tuesday, October 6th, and our conversation began with affordability.

(Aaron Ford) Well, look, affordability is the word of the day, as you've said.

But I know when I was seven or eight years old I might not have known what the word meant, but I knew my parents couldn't afford food.

As you know, I grew up eating stale candy bars for dinner and was a single parent in college.

And so this resonates with me in a different kind of way.

I know what families are struggling with right now.

And so on day one I will issue an affordability emergency that will require all of our agencies to find ways to save people money, whether it's extraneous fees, whether it's, you know, fines.

Whatever the case may be, the onus is going to be on my administrative agencies to find ways to put money back in people's pockets so that they can afford to live in what we will just be coming out of, this Lombardo-Trump economy.

-Have you identified a specific fee that makes sense?

-As I've indicated, I think part of the process is to convene meetings with my administrative agencies to have them tell me what kind of fees there are.

Are there DMV fees?

Are there, you know, fees for other types of permits or requirements?

The bottom line is, if we can find emergencies to help businesses, we can find emergencies to help people.

And that's what I'm going to do.

-What else can you do as governor that does not require the approval of the legislature for affordability?

-Well, look, I mean, I think part and parcel with this is understanding that this is an all-hands-on-deck approach, right?

To be sure, I will look to do things as I can, as being the top cheerleader for the state, to try to convince a federal government, unlike our current governor who kowtows and capitulates to a federal government under Donald Trump, to try to convince them to avoid consequences or actions that are going to harm Nevadans.

But this is a team sport.

And what we've seen is that we have a governor who doesn't know how to work with the legislature, who's going to go down in history as one who has vetoed the most bills in the history of our state.

But most damning is that he's going to go down as one who has vetoed the most bipartisan bills in the entire state.

So that even when Democrats and Republicans have worked together, he still has not been able to work with them.

What I'm going to do is take the expertise I've already accumulated over the course of my years serving the public and work with the legislature to pass bills that are going to lower prescription drug costs, that are going to lower housing costs, that are going to feed our children, things that the governor has all vetoed and has placed us in the circumstance right now.

-Which bipartisan bill comes to mind when you talk about what he's vetoed?

-Oh, I just gave you three examples.

Well, maybe not.

Maybe all of those are not bipartisan, but there are several bipartisan bills that he vetoed, and, you know, we can certainly run down a list of those.

We can find those for you.

-Well, we could talk about corporate investors in housing.

That was in the special session, a bipartisan bill with a 1,000-unit cap on the number of homes that corporate investors could buy every year in Nevada.

-Let's back up on that, actually.

Because before it made to the special session, it was presented for a second time during the legislative session right before that where we heard Senator Ira Hansen, a Republican, stand up to say that he supported the bill.

But he was instructed by Joe Lombardo and the executive branch to kill the bill so that it didn't reach him in the first place.

These are examples of the type of instruction that our governor gave to his caucus to ensure that we would not get relief for that bill that would have freed up homes.

-So you want to implement a limit on the number of homes that corporate investors could buy in Nevada each year.

What would that limit be?

How many?

-Well, listen, Senator Neal's original bill, I believe it had 100.

The bill that was to be considered in the special had 1,000, right?

I mean, I think the conversation is to be had relative to what the right number is, but I'm going to sign the bill, right, because 15% of the homes in Clark County are owned by corporations.

25% of the homes in North Las Vegas are owned by corporations.

Even Donald Trump agrees with me on this.

Corporations don't live in homes; people live in homes.

And at the end of the day, I'm going to free up some of those homes so that people can actually compete for them.

-What else would you do on housing that the governor has not already done?

-Well, look, I think one of the things we also have to be concerned with is how much rent costs in our state, right?

As I understood it, recently the average rental price was $2,000 a month, maybe a little bit above that now.

But right now, apartment complexes can charge three times as much for a security deposit.

States, I believe, like in Mississippi and Wyoming, limit it to one month.

We're going to do that.

That's another example.

-And when you talk about rent increases, there was a proposal for a 5% limit on an increase for rent for seniors that the governor vetoed.

-Sandra Jauregui proposed that bill, correct.

-Yeah.

And would you support something like that?

-I will.

-Okay.

But the argument against it is that, and the governor has written this in his veto message that if that is implemented, some of these owners of the properties might begin to do preemptory hikes in rent and that, long term, this could discourage people from investing in homes, then take away the housing supply that is available for renters.

There's another argument to be made that this would result in some landlords not being able to make appropriate repairs with less money because they can't raise rent.

Do you agree with any of those arguments?

Do you see that reasoning?

-I've heard all of the excuses.

It's always the sky's going to fall when you try to help people, right?

Governor Lombardo has shown us and has told us who his priorities are.

When Trump was in town, on his own volition he lets people know that he's going to take care of Trump's billionaire friends because those are the ones creating the jobs while the small business creating jobs are getting demolished, while he's vetoing bills that could put money back in people's pockets.

I'm confident that we can ascertain ways in our state to facilitate the continued growth of the rental market while at the same time protecting our seniors living on, on limited budgets as they continue to try to live a sustainable life in our state.

And I feel confident in that.

-Another issue within the affordability sphere is utility costs.

And so you pledged to put a stop to NV Energy's daily demand charge.

A district court ruled against your office.

As governor, what would you do to stop that?

Would you have the authority to?

-Well, first, let's pick up on the judge.

I mean, I'm the attorney general right now, and we have or will be appealing that decision.

We believe it's wrong.

We don't believe that the PUC had the authority to issue the order in the first place.

I view it as pure greed from the utility right now to try to figure out a way to recoup costs that they're losing to solar energy opportunities, for example.

And at the end of the day, again, I intend to take care of those individuals who are having a hard time--certainly not thriving, but just surviving--in our state.

-And NV Energy says that this is actually going to lower bills under the new structure for most customers.

-What else would they say?

What else would they say?

And, look, it's at the end of the day, it comes down to the battle of experts.

My consumer protection bureau, which is charged with being an advocate for the consumers, disagrees.

And they say that it won't lower the cost for most folks.

In fact, it's going to increase costs, especially in our seniors and other communities.

And so, regardless of what the courts say, we will be looking to work with the legislature to say it's against our public policy.

-And so the mission of the Public Utilities Commission in Nevada is to try and balance the interests of customers and shareholders.

You don't think it's doing that?

-That's the stated interest, and I do think that they have shown a penchant as of late to align themselves with utility at the expense of their consumer, which is the reason why I'm proposing a bill that is going to expand the Public Utilities Commission.

Right now, the idea I have is by three folks who are consumer protection oriented, but you know that's open to discussion relative to what that expansion would look like.

-What do you think about the current commission, which is made up of two commissioners that were appointed by Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak?

-I'm talking about the decisions coming out of the commission.

I don't care who appointed them or who reappointed them, because Lombardo did reappoint them.

We're looking at the outcomes that my consumer protection team has advised and opines on that it is at the detriment of consumers.

I agree, and we're-- and it's incumbent upon me to address that.

-Data centers.

In 2015, you cosponsored the bill that created the tax abatements for them.

Now you want the abatements paused.

What changed?

-Data centers changed.

The data centers of 2015 are not the data centers of 2026.

And here's what I know: I've been a public official for a long time.

Our constituents don't want an elected official who can't change with the dynamics.

It's not dogma over dynamics.

It's over-- it's about being responsible and responsive to current circumstances.

When we passed that bill in 2015, it was seven years before the advent of ChatGPT, certainly years before the advent of the current usage of AI.

So the conversations around power and water weren't the same.

In 2015, we were coming out of a recession, creating jobs and providing abatements or tax incentives to do exactly that.

It is time to take a new look at that.

It is time to respond to what consumers are telling me, what their constituents are telling me.

They're concerned about their price increases on the electricity.

They're concerned about water usage.

They're concerned that these tax breaks have expired their utility.

They're concerned that Joe Lombardo has not complied with the terms of the bill that was passed in 2015 in the first place, which required audits to take place.

He has not audited these data centers for whom he's given $240 million of tax incentives and not looked to ensure that they have complied with their end of the bargain.

So that's what has changed.

And me being responsible and responsive is which is the effect.

-If the governor were to audit the data centers according to what they promised to do in NRS statute, to get 10-year abatements back when this was established, companies would have to employ ten full-time employees.

Ten full-time employees, is that enough?

-Yeah.

In 2015, that was, that was a conversation that we contemplated, right?

But it also included construction jobs.

And as I remind you, we were in a, we were in a recession where people couldn't afford food.

I remember getting testimony and letters from individuals saying we need additional jobs to be created, and this was a responsible way at the time to address that.

But again, that was 11 years ago, and what we're looking at right now are new concerns about the data center that exists in 2026, the data center that Joe Lombardo says he wholeheartedly supports, that he says is the new gold rush for Nevada.

But the only gold really rushing is from data center interests to his campaign coffers.

-Right now the governor has an executive order in place that would end data centers' exemption from local school taxes.

So the data centers that are already here get that exemption, but any new data centers would not get that exemption.

Do you think that's enough?

What do you think of that move?

-Well, I think it's weak pandering is what I think it is.

But I also think that it is insufficient and improper to base our educational funding on one industry.

What we should be doing is ensuring that we have sufficient, across industry, monies coming into our, into our system and not banking on the existence of a data center coming to town or not.

-So do you want to expand taxes on industries in Nevada to support education?

-What I have been clear on is that under this Lombardo-Trump economy is that I cannot raise taxes.

People are struggling to get by.

I was talking to a young lady in Minden, Nevada, who had groceries in in the store and went to get her prescription, couldn't afford both and left those groceries in the aisle.

I can't look her in her face.

I will look her in her face and tell her, I'm not going to raise your taxes because your Lombardo has caused you to be in the circumstance as it is.

And we we are going to be the governor who lowers costs for you.

-What about more taxes on gaming or mining to help fund that?

-My answer doesn't change.

The Lombardo-Trump economy is decimating us.

Look at the-- look at the numbers of tourism.

They continue to decrease--from Canada, from China, from Mexico, from neighboring states--because gasoline is $6 a gallon, right?

And at the end of the day, again, what we have to do in the first instance is pass bills that are going to put money back in people's pockets--I've given you examples of those already--and push back on efforts to continue to only take care of the billionaires in our state, which is what Joe Lombardo says he wants to do.

-Well, and I'm bringing up all of these tax measures to fund education because you want to raise per-pupil funding to the national average.

According to Nevada's Commission on School Funding, that would require an extra $250 million each year for the next 10 years, and that commission said, "Property taxes and sales taxes are the only two sources of tax revenue that have the ability to do that."

But you're not going to raise taxes on them, so how do you meet that per-pupil funding goal?

-Well, what I've also said is that no one gets everything in one fell swoop.

I've been clear about that: that we won't be able to raise the per-pupil expenditure average in one term, that it's irresponsible to even mislead people into thinking that way.

What I have said unequivocally is that we will make substantial progress toward doing that.

What won't happen is what Joe Lombardo did, and that's a minuscule of $2 per pupil increase per pupil year over year.

That was his budget.

That showed his priority.

-That was his latest budget.

-That was his latest budget.

-The one prior to that had historic, a historic increase in funding.

-I've been a part of history, too.

I was in part of history when we added monies in 2015, but it followed with continued actions supporting our schools.

And what our governor did was showed that school funding was not his priority.

It was his budget, and he only put $2 per pupil in there?

These are his own actions, and he is to be held accountable for them.

-Back to the education funding.

-We can go back to education funding.

-Public school enrollment is falling, and funding follows enrollment.

So he recently backed an emergency measure that funds schools at the enrollment level that was budgeted for in the 2025 session.

The actual enrollment is lower, and that left a big funding gap.

What do you think about that move-- -Well, I think it's-- - --to provide that money to education?

-I think the timing is interesting.

The election is in a few weeks.

He could have done this six months ago, but instead he tries to come in and act as though he's the savior for an issue that he himself has helped to create.

What we need are true advocates for education.

What we need are those who are actually going to support on a continual basis an educational system that needs continual support, not one who uses political opportunism in order to be able to get a headline.

-He is a proponent of school choice.

Where do you stand on that?

-Well, it depends on what you mean by "school choice."

You see, Republicans have done a good job of co-opting the phrase as if to say that the only form of school choice is voucher schools.

I do not support voucher schools, but I do support school choice.

And I've been on the record as having supported school choice in terms of charter schools, in terms of open enrollment, in terms of magnet programs, in terms of vocational education.

What do they all have in common?

"Public" school choice.

What I do not advocate for and will not support is public money going toward private schools.

And so, when you use school choice with me, I'm not buying into the co-opted phrase that the Republicans are trying to say, which only means you can advocate for school choice if you support vouchers.

I do not support vouchers.

-During Governor Lombardo's tenure, he says he has accomplished higher test scores, better graduation rates, and then that record funding increase in 2023.

How will you improve upon that?

-Yeah, look.

First off, it begins by being a consistent advocate for educators and letting educators do their jobs.

Everyone-- Honestly, this is my-- I'm a former teacher.

I've been in the classroom.

I have five degrees in education-- five degrees, four of which are in education, including a PhD in education.

And I have a very well understanding of the difficulties educators have, especially when others think they can do the job of educators better than educators can.

That's not to say input shouldn't be allowed, but we should certainly respect our educators by giving them appropriate salaries, by feeding our children so that they can actually concentrate in school.

I was a hungry child with a stomach growling who couldn't concentrate in my math class.

I've taught that child.

Governor should have fed that child.

-You're talking about the universal school lunch, right?

That was a pandemic-era program.

That was funding from the federal government, one-time funds.

His argument is that it's no longer the pandemic.

We don't have that funding that was from the federal government, and this will reduce waste, food waste.

-His argument was that it was a waste of money and that it was too expensive.

Those are his arguments.

It wouldn't have been a waste on a kid like me or those that I taught whose stomach was growling and couldn't concentrate in class.

The program only cost $48 million.

He was halfway there.

His priorities are demonstrated in his budget, and I'm going to sign that bill.

-Where do you plan to find the money to increase the per-pupil funding?

-Well, I think I've addressed this already.

What, what we're going to look to do is to ensure that we make some level of incremental increase, and that's a budgeting issue.

-Eventually you got to find a source of $250 million.

-Not in one fell swoop.

-Additional dollars.

Not in one fell swoop, but eventually.

So where?

Where?

-Not in-- -After your first term, where would you find it?

-Yeah.

And you said it's 250 over 10 years?

I certainly won't be there for 10 years.

-Each year over.

-Yeah, exactly.

And what I'm telling you is this is a long-term project that requires dedication to it, and it requires more than $2 per pupil expenditure year over year, which is what your governor put into his budget.

My budget will have more than $2.

I can guarantee you that.

-You have to give me some idea on where you're going to look for that funding.

-It doesn't matter how many times you ask me the same question.

What I've said to you is that our budget is going-- Our priorities are going to be shown in our budget, and we are going to use monies from-- that are available to us to fund the priorities that we list, period, point blank.

-What are you most proud of having accomplished as Attorney General in Nevada?

-Oh, my.

There are so many things.

But the one that makes me smile right now is the most recent settlement that I've gotten with two different social media platforms, protecting our children from predators and from the addictive nature of social media platforms.

My meetings with other attorneys general, Democratic and Republicans, have led to me getting the first of its kind settlement in the nation with Roblox.

I don't know if you're familiar with Roblox, but it's a place that kids love to go play and a place where predators love to go prey.

And because of the settlement that I received, I was able to change the actions of Roblox, such that we're going to protect our children comparably with Meta.

I sued Meta two or three years ago--Facebook, Instagram, and Meta, generally speaking, and it was Messenger.

And we got $255 million dollars coming in that can go toward, for example, school nurses, right, to help pay for mental health concern, issues or support, that we need for our children.

But more importantly than the money, it's going to be the change in behavior of those platforms: No more being on the app between midnight and six, no more notifications during school hours, getting rid of the filters that have caused so much body dysmorphia.

These are the types of things that I've been proud of, not the least of which being because it's about our children.

-Now, during your time as attorney general, investigations by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and The Nevada Independent found that you spent hundreds of days out of state, and in that time you traveled to places like France, Spain, Qatar.

Why does a state attorney general need to travel to foreign countries?

-Well, look, I know that there's been a lot of interest in my work with other attorneys general around the nation, Democrats and Republicans.

My first job is to keep Nevadans safe, and I will go wherever it's necessary to do exactly that.

We have convened on issues related to sex trafficking; human trafficking; labor trafficking; social media issues, including Roblox and Facebook; fentanyl.

You name it.

And at the end of the day, those have resulted in litigation.

It's resulted in legislation.

It's resulted in prosecutions because crime doesn't stop at our borders.

These convenings are face to face because when I am able to bring home $1.2 billion in opioid recoveries, it's not because I sat on the phone somewhere.

I actually had to sit down and have a conversation, a debate, and struggle for our fair share of opportunity.

And at the end of the day, those outlets that you've mentioned, The Nevada Independent had a little block chart in there.

And there was a number in there that is very important.

It was the number 16.

The number 16 represents the amount of vacation days I've had in seven and a half years.

That's how many days of vacation I've had.

Other than that, I'm working for Nevadans anywhere I am.

-You've been adamant taxpayers did not fund that travel, so who did?

-Yeah.

The attorney general associations of which I'm a part, similar to what your governor has done by having these trips paid for by the Republican Governors Association or by the Western Governors Association or by the National Governors Association.

Now, his meetings, his convenings in Jackson Hole, his convenings in Nashville, his convenings in Mar-a-Lago, are those under the same scrutiny?

He's delivered nothing from those meetings.

I've delivered $1.2 billion.

I've delivered Roblox settlements.

I've delivered legislation and litigation that is protecting folks.

-Another controversy, that's with Norman Smith.

There is an application.

At least the board agenda meeting said that you sponsored this application for the commutation of a sentence for Norman Smith who was convicted of robbery and also, more seriously, the killing of a pregnant woman back in 2015.

Why did that get onto the agenda?

Why did you sponsor that application?

-Yeah.

Well, let's be clear what this matter was about.

This was about a robbery charge that the person who prosecuted Mr.

Smith said in writing had been disproportionately-- have resulted in a disproportionate sentence.

That's how it was presented to me over a year ago, by the way, when the application came before me.

And incidentally, you should understand that sponsorship doesn't mean support.

It means that I will agree to have it on the agenda so that you can try to prove your case.

And I reserved it-- and I reserved the right during that time period to say I have no idea how I'm going to vote on this.

But if, in fact, the prosecutor comes before-- comes to me and says, yeah, I think-- well, in a letter.

It was actually part of the packet.

But in the letter it said that he thought that this guy had been disproportionately sentenced on his robbery charge as it related to the other defendant in the case, and that is the reason why it made it to the agenda.

He also said in the application that the mandatory minimum sentence on the voluntary manslaughter charge had already been served.

So this was about a sentence modification, a request for a modification, on a robbery charge that the prosecutor himself said was disproportionately placed on this defendant versus another.

That's-- that's the long and short of the matter.

-Last question: If you are elected, do you anticipate the President to retaliate against Nevada?

-Listen, I stay ready for anything, as I've had to do as your attorney general.

I have defeated Donald Trump in court at every single turn, maybe with the exception of one that we were able to settle.

I stand ready to defend Nevadans from anybody who's going to do us harm, whether it's President Trump or President Biden, who also I had to sue.

But I also stand ready to work with anybody.

I have said that I will work with anyone who is serious about improving the lives of Nevadans.

I said it about President Trump, and he indicated that he wanted to help us with sex trafficking issues.

And then he cut our funding, right?

So he wasn't serious.

And at the end of the day, you know, I will be a governor who is going to look out for the entirety of the Nevada family, not just the billionaires, not just those who are donating to my campaign, but to every single person in this family, because they deserve that type of representation.

-Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, thank you for joining Nevada Week.

-Thank you for having me.

-In advance of this interview, Nevada Week gave the Ford campaign a list of general topics, and we offered to do the same to Governor Lombardo's campaign.

The governor's campaign declined our invitation to participate, but our invitation to Governor Lombardo to appear before the election remains open.

We want to thank you for joining us.

To watch a series of videos to help you prepare for the election, go to vegaspbs.org, and we'll see you next week on Nevada Week.

♪♪♪