FACT CHECK: NRSC Ad Repeats Old Discredited Attacks on Catherine Cortez Masto’s Record

Image: Photo of Catherine with “Catherine Cortez Masto” below

Text: Nevada – 3rd most dangerous in U.S. 24-7 Wall Street, 1/2/15

Headline: Las Vegas Sun: Anti-Cortez Masto Advertisement Guilty Of Deceit. [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 8/22/16]

Las Vegas Sun Editorial: NRSC Ad Was “Playing Voters For Suckers” And Lied About Cortez Masto’s Record. “This particular commercial might seem damning for the conclusions it tries to draw about the qualifications of Heck’s Democratic opponent, former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. But it’s playing voters for suckers… PolitiFact took a look at this commercial and observed: ‘The numbers are technically accurate, but the ad fails to prove what Cortez Masto had to do with them.'” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 8/22/16]

Las Vegas Sun Editorial: NRSC Was “Deceitful And Conniving” In Launching Ad. Presumably, the National Republican Senatorial Committee knew this when it ordered the commercial. It knew it was trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes. It knew it was being deceitful and conniving.” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 8/22/16]

Las Vegas Sun Editorial: NRSC Offered No Proven Link Between Actions As Attorney General And Changes In Crime Rate. “And it’s worth examining the hard statistics cited in the TV spot. Crime rates are volatile and can spike up or down any given year. In fact, the commercial conveniently, for its purposes, looked only at the second half of Cortez Masto’s time as attorney general. Looking at her entire eight-year term, total crimes in Nevada decreased from nearly 116,814 in her first year to 92,376 in her last year. And consider this: That dip in overall crime during her time in office occurred as Nevada’s population increased by about 300,000 residents. The ad claims that Cortez Masto ‘couldn’t keep us safe.’ But the NRSC offers no proven link connecting her actions as attorney general to swings in murder, robbery and rape.” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 8/22/16]

Las Vegas Sun Editorial: State Officials Can Establish Policies Toward Criminals, But Policing In Neighborhoods And Area Commands Affect Incidence Of Crime. “Yes, Cortez Masto was Nevada’s attorney general from 2007 to 2015. But while state officials — including lawmakers — can help establish a state’s policy toward criminals, the actual incidence of crime is a factor of effective policing in individual neighborhoods and area commands.” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial,8/22/16]

PolitiFact: NRSC Ad “Mostly False” Because Crime Statistics Were A Crude Way To Measure Safety And Nevada Had Several Quirks That Inflated Numbers. “Experts agree that crime statistics are a crude way to measure safety, and Nevada has several quirks that inflate the numbers. The ad claims that Cortez Masto ‘couldn’t keep us safe,’ but crime statistics have more to do with local law enforcement agencies than the state’s attorney general. The NRSC offers no proven link connecting her actions as attorney general to a swing in murder, robbery and rape. The statement contains an element of truth but leaves out important details. We rate the statement Mostly False.” [PolitiFact, 8/10/16]

PolitiFact: No Proof That Cortez Masto Had Anything To Do With Decline Of Crime In First Term Or Subsequent Increase In Second. “That’s a serious charge, and there’s no concrete proof she had anything to do with the decline in crime in her first term or the subsequent increase in her second. Crime was at an historical low in 2011, and it’s hard to say why. The crime report itself cautions police agencies against drawing any conclusions about a specific department given the variety of factors that can affect crime trends. ‘Because of other assigned duties, the peculiar cycle of crime and clearances, and different community factors that normally affect crime statistics, no conclusions regarding individual departments should be made without consulting directly with the agency being analyzed,’ the report states.” [PolitiFact, 8/10/16]

PolitiFact: No Proof That Cortez Masto Caused Nevada’s Ranking Third In Ten Most Dangerous States. “Similarly, there is some truth that Nevada took the third spot in a ranking of the 10 most dangerous states. Again, however, it’s not proven what Cortez Masto had to do with it, and the source is not as credible as the FBI. The NRSC cites a list published in January 2015 from 24/7 Wall Street, a website that covers financial news. The list indeed ranks Nevada third, but the data relies on both crime data and socioeconomic factors, such as the poverty rate and the percentage of adults with a high school diploma. No attorneys general, in Nevada or elsewhere, play much of a role in setting educational policy or promoting programs to get people out of poverty.”[PolitiFact, 8/10/16]

PolitiFact: NRSC Cherry-Picked Handful Of Crime Statistics To Portray Cortez Masto As Weak On Crime. “The NRSC ad says Nevada was ranked as the third most dangerous state by the time Cortez Masto left office, and that “murder went up 11 percent, robbery went up 28 percent, rape 51 percent” during her second term. The NRSC cherry-picks a handful of short-term crime statistics to portray Cortez Masto as weak on crime enforcement. But the argument is flawed.” [PolitiFact, 8/10/16]

Jon Ralston Says There’s “Never Been Any Evidence” Of Congressman Heck’s Outrageous Attacks On Cortez Masto’s Character As AG. RALSTON: “But I do think that the definition of her as being corrupt is, it is something she really needs to worry about, even though there’s never been any evidence that that’s true.” [Ed Morrissey Show, 8/26/16]

Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Steve Sebelius: “These Ads Attempt To Go One Bridge Too Far, Levying A Charge Of Corruption Where It Does Not Fit.” In August 2016, Steve Sebelius wrote, “But these ads attempt to go one bridge too far, levying a charge of corruption where it does not fit (for example, almost all public officials attend official conventions put on by groups, ranging from governors to statewide officials to members of the Legislature and even local governments). It’s difficult to alleged that a single public official, whether an AG, a DA or even a sheriff, can singlehandedly be held responsible for an increase (or a decrease) in the crime rate, let alone that attending a seminar had such an impact.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, Steve Sebelius Column, 8/26/16]

Steve Sebelius: Heck’s Campaign “Should Know There’s A Breaking Point At Which Stretching Those Facts Too Far Will Cause Them To Snap.” In August 2016, Steve Sebelius wrote, “Heck’s campaign is certainly entitled to comb over Cortez Masto’s record and identify things that undercut her campaign’s law-and-order message (in fact, that follows a popular political strategy to attack an opponent where she’s the strongest). But the campaign should know there’s a breaking point at which stretching those facts too far will cause them to snap. That’s worth remembering since it doesn’t appear the ‘corruption’ meme is going to go away anytime soon.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, Steve Sebelius Column, 8/26/16]

Washington Post Fact Check Gave NRSC Three Pinocchios For False Claims About Cortez Masto Support For Iran Deal.[Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]

Washington Post Fact Check: NRSC “Exaggerated Charges” And Used “Misleading Language” To Frighten Voters Into Thinking Cortez Masto Made A Foreign Policy Blunder By Supporting Iran Deal. In September 2015, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “This is an ad designed to frighten voters into thinking that Masto has made a tragic foreign-policy blunder that will lead to nuclear conflict. But the images would be justified only if the case were as compelling as the NRSC suggests. Instead, the organization has exaggerated the charges and used misleading language to make its case. With a few tweaks in the wording and less stark images, the NRSC could make a reasonable argument that supporting the nuclear deal is a mistake. But this effort is a miss.” [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]

Washington Post Fact Check: NRSC Ad “Incorrectly” Suggested Iran Deal Allows The Financing Of Terrorists. In September 2015, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “Iran has billions of dollars in assets that are frozen in foreign banks around the globe, and this deal would unlock those funds. No one quite knows how much money is at stake, but estimates range from $29 billion to $150 billion, with $100 billion the figure most often used. The Treasury Department has estimated that once Iran fulfills other obligations, it would have about $56 billion left. That’s certainly ‘billions.’ But remember, this is already Iran’s money; it is not being ‘given’ any kind of signing bonus. […] The ad, however, incorrectly suggests that the agreement directly allows the financing of terrorists.” [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]

Washington Post Fact Check: NRSC Ad Used “Misleading Language” To Make It Appear That Arms Controls Were Being Weakened. In September 2015, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “‘Arms controls’ refers to U.N. Security Council sanctions limiting nations from supplying Iran’s weapon programs. Iran had wanted the sanctions lifted immediately, but as a compromise the deal called for the embargo on ballistic missiles to be lifted after a maximum of eight years. Sanctions on conventional weapons would be lifted after five years. The time frame could be shortened if the International Atomic Energy Agency determines that Iran’s nuclear program was only for peaceful purposes. Here, again, the ad uses misleading language. This nuclear deal is an arms-control agreement, but ad makes it appears as if ‘arms controls’ are being weakened. Supplies for Iran’s ballistic missile program were under sanctions, but there were never agreed limits on the number of Iran’s ballistic missiles, as is typical in an arms-control agreement.” [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]

Washington Post Fact Check: Despite NRSC Ad Claims, All Of Iran’s Nuclear Sites Will Have Continuous Monitoring And IAEA Officials Insisted Verification Was “Not Compromised.” In September 2015, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “Under the deal, all of Iran’s declared nuclear sites, such as the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, will be under continuous monitoring by the IAEA. For 10 years, Iran will have limits on the uranium enrichment permitted at Natanz; the IAEA will be able to keep close tabs on the production. The deal also allows IAEA monitoring of Iran’s centrifuge production and storage facilities, the procurement chain, and the mining and milling of uranium — verification measures that many experts say exceed those under previous negotiated nuclear deals with other nations. So what is the ad talking about? It is referring to sites that have not been declared as nuclear, such as sensitive military locations. Under a side agreement between Iran and the IAEA, Iran will help collect samples at Parchin, which Tehran says is a conventional military facility, though the IAEA believes explosive triggers for nuclear weapons may have been tested there. The IAEA sought access to the site to determine whether there had been a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program. News reports have given contradictory information on what took place during a September visit to Parchin by the IAEA. Officials have said that Iranian technicians played a role in obtaining the samples — possibly without IAEA officials present — but insisted that the verification process was not compromised. Still, officials have conceded that the arrangement was a departure from the way the IAEA normally conducts inspections. In any case, the ad again greatly simplifies a complex issue.” [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]

PolitiFact Nevada: NRSC Claim That Cortez Masto Took Pay Increases Is “A Highly Misleading Claim.” “The NRSC said Cortez Masto ‘was happy to line her own pockets with taxpayer dollars when state employees were slammed with frozen salaries,’ but this is a highly misleading claim. The state increased Cortez Masto’s salary during a time of pay freezes for Nevada’s state workers. She was unable to legally reject the pay increase, so she donated $38,000 back to the state during her last four years in office. We rate the claim Mostly False.” [PolitiFact Nevada,2/3/16]

PolitiFact Nevada: It’s Clear That As Attorney General, Cortez Masto Didn’t “Pad Her Pockets” While State Workers Suffered – She Received Essentially The Same Salary During Her Eight Years In Office. “According to information collected from TransparentNevada.com and records request from the state Controller’s office, PolitiFact Nevada put together this spreadsheet of salaries, donations and what percentage of salary was donated back to the state. As shown, it’s clear that as Attorney General, Cortez Masto didn’t ‘pad her pockets’ while state workers suffered — rather, she received essentially the same salary (not counting benefits) during her eight years in office when donations are subtracted out.” [PolitiFact Nevada, 2/3/16]

John L. Smith: Koch Brothers Ads Against Cortez Masto Are “Misleading.” “The Koch brothers are investing millions in Nevada to defeat Catherine Cortez Masto for U.S. Senate. John L. Smith says their ads linking her to Uber are misleading.” [Nevada Public Radio, 7/5/16]

Jon Ralston: Freedom Partners Uber Ad Is “Bullshit” – Uber Is Still Here. In June 2016, Jon Ralston tweeted: “@FreedomPartners digital ad on @CatherineForNV is brutal but BS: It says she ‘drove them out of town,’ but Uber is still here.’ [Twitter, Jon Ralston, 6/24/16]

Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Steve Sebelius On Uber Ad: Cortez Masto Had The Gall To Actually Enforce The Law. In June 2016, Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Steve Sebelius tweeted: “Shorter @FreedomPartners on @CatherineForNV: ‘As attorney general, she had the gall to actually enforce NV transpo laws as written!’” [Twitter, Steve Sebelius, 6/24/16]

Headline: PolitiFact: “Freedom Partners Ad Attacking Cortez Masto On Uber ‘Mostly False.’” [Politifact, 7/7/16]

Politifact Rated The Uber Attack Ad Mostly False – “Uber At The Very Least Bent The Rules, And It’s Clear That Cortez Masto Didn’t Have Some Sort Of Vendetta Against The Ride-Hailing Company.” “Freedom Partners got a couple of the details right in the amount of taxi industry donations and Cortez Masto’s aggressive legal actions against Uber. But there’s a convincing argument that Uber at the very least bent the rules, and it’s clear that Cortez Masto didn’t have some sort of individual vendetta against the ride-hailing company — her office was working with state regulators who specifically requested the attorney general take action. The ad also neglects to mention how Uber only temporarily left town. The ridesharing service is very much up and running through Nevada a year after its initial skirmish with the state. Because this ad takes things out of context, we rate it Mostly False.” [Politifact, 7/7/16]

Heck Supporter And Former Nevada Transportation Authority Chairman Said It’s Possible Cortez Masto Could Have Ignored The Will Of The State, But It Would Have Been Highly Unusual, “I Couldn’t Foresee The AG Or Any AG Not Enforcing State Law.” “Former Nevada Transportation Authority chairman Andrew MacKay said the massive size of Uber’s workforce dwarfed the enforcement capabilities of state regulators, meaning the only real maneuver available was a court-ordered restraining order. MacKay, who disclosed that he’s supporting Republican Joe Heck in the state’s Senate race, detailed some of the issues with Uber in a three-page affidavit describing the more stringent requirements of Nevada’s cab companies. […] MacKay, chairman of the state’s ‘client’ in the case against Uber, said it’s theoretically possible that Cortez Masto could have ignored the will of the state and not filed suit, but it would have been highly unusual. ‘I couldn’t foresee the AG or any AG not enforcing state law,’ MacKay said.” [Politifact, 7/7/16]

Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Steve Sebelius: Two Recent Ads From The Koch Brothers-Backed Freedom Partners Action Fund PAC Targeting Cortez Masto Arranged Perfectly True Facts To Lead To A False Conclusion. “Anybody who’s ever been to a courthouse knows its possible to arrange perfectly true facts to lead a jury to a false conclusion. It’s no different in the court of public opinion. Take two recent ads from the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund PAC targeting Democratic former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who’s now running for Senate. The ads allege she hired a well-connected Washington, D.C., law firm to sue Bank of America during the foreclosure crisis. The firm earned millions in fees. Partners in the firm later gave Cortez Masto campaign contributions. Therefore, corruption!” [Las Vegas Review Journal, Column, 5/10/16]

Las Vegas Review Journal’s Steve Sebelius: “Sounds Much More Like Cortez Masto Doing Her Job Than Cozying Up To A Washington Special Interest For Personal Profit.” “So, while it’s true Cortez Masto recommended the hiring of a law firm that earned money representing the state and whose partners later contributed to her campaign, it’s also true the firm successfully forced one of the largest banks in the country to pay the state millions to compensate for alleged wrongdoing. That sounds much more like Cortez Masto doing her job than cozying up to a Washington special interest for personal profit. In fact, you’d have to very carefully arrange the facts to lead people to that conclusion. That’s why you always have to wait until you’ve heard the entire story, in court and out.” [Las Vegas Review Journal, Column, 5/10/16]

Text: Freed drunk drivers, killers [emphasis in ad] incorrectly

Image: Photo of Catherine with “Catherine Cortez Masto” below

AG Cortez Masto: I Reviewed The Law And The Advice Given By AG’s Office Was Wrong, We Contacted Corrections And They’ll Take “Immediate Corrective Actions.” “Eight people convicted of drunken driving and killing or injuring someone are being removed from a house-arrest program and will be sent back to prison following a Reno Gazette-Journal investigation that found the corrections department had not followed the law. Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said Wednesday that she re-viewed the law following the RGJ special report on the early release of 40 DUI offenders and found that her office had given the corrections agency incorrect legal advice. She said these offenders must spend a minimum of two years in prison. ‘Since the article came out (Sunday), I have reviewed the law, and the advice given by our office was wrong,’ Masto said. ‘The law is very clear. The mandatory minimum prison sentence must be served prior to any house arrest.’ ‘We contacted the agency, and they’ll take immediate corrective actions,’ she said. ‘We want to do what’s right for the victims.’” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 2/18/10]

AG Cortez Masto Said Her Office Gave The Corrections Department Incorrect Legal Advice, Issued New Opinion That DUI Offenders Must Spend Two Years Behind Bars Before Being Eligible For Parole. “Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto reviewed the state law, and said her office had given the corrections department incorrect legal advice about a program. In response to her opinion, the department pulled the eight people who were out on the program at the time back to prison on Feb. 16. In March, Masto issued another opinion saying the offenders must spend a full two years behind bars before being eligible for parole. The time they had spent on house arrest cannot count toward that two-year period, she said.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 12/31/10]

Headline: Reno Gazette-Journal: “Nevada Attorney General Reverses DUI Parole.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 3/10/10]

Cortez Masto Issued AG Opinion Requiring DUI Offenders To Serve Their Minimum Sentence Behind Bars Sent Eight DUI Offenders Back To Prison. “The bill was prompted by a Gazette-Journal story that debated the program and ended when Masto released an opinion saying all DUI offenders who kill or injure someone must serve their minimum sentence behind bars. The opinion resulted in eight offenders being sent back to prison.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 6/8/11]

Cortez Masto Ruled That People Who Kill Or Injure Someone While Driving Drunk Must Serve A Minimum Two-Year Sentence. “Winkle is one of eight DUI offenders sent back to prison in February 2010 after Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto ruled that people who kill or injury someone while driving drunk must serve a minimum two-year sentence behind bars. Masto’s decision followed a Reno Gazette-Journal investigation that found that many serious DUI offenders were released on house arrest after serving only months or a year behind bars. Winkle was out on house arrest within four months of being incarcerated.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 5/20/11]

Headline: Reno Gazette-Journal: “8 Nevada DUI Offenders To Be Returned To Prison Friday.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 2/19/10]

In Response To Report About DUI Offenders Being Released Early, AG Cortez Masto Ordered Eight Offenders Who Killed Or Injured Someone Back To Prison. “Eight people convicted of killing or injuring someone while driving drunk will be moved to prisons, after an order from Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto that the law requires them to spend at least two years behind bars. Masto’s decision was in response to a Reno Gazette-Journal investigation published Sunday that found that 40 of 113 people convicted since 2000 of DUI causing death or substantial bodily harm did not spend two years in prison as required by law.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 2/19/10]

Reno Gazette-Journal: Offender’s Families Blasted Decision To Return DUI Offenders While Victim Families Felt Vindicated. “Eight DUI offenders were jailed today and will return to prison Friday after being required to finish their two-year mandatory sentences, causing some offender’s families to blast the decision while victim families felt vindicated.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 2/19/10]

Headline: Associated Press: “Ruling Sends 8 DUI Offenders Back To Prison In NV.” [Associated Press, 2/18/10]

Cortez Masto Ruled That DUI Offenders Must Returned To Prison After Being Placed On House Arrest Due To Incorrect Legal Advice From AG’s Office. “A ruling by Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is sending eight people convicted of drunken driving causing death or injury back to prison. Masto said her office gave incorrect legal advice to the corrections department that such offenders could be placed on house arrest. She said state law is clear that they must spend at least two years in prison. Her review was prompted by a Reno Gazette-Journal story on the early release of 40 of the 113 people convicted since 2000 of causing death or severe injuries while driving drunk in Nevada. The newspaper reported that 22 of the 40 people spent fewer than 10 months behind bars and another six spent only three or four months in prison. ‘Since the article came out, I have reviewed the law, and the advice given by our office was wrong,’ Masto said. ‘The law is very clear. The mandatory minimum prison sentence must be served prior to any house arrest. ‘We contacted the (corrections department), and they’ll take immediate corrective actions. We want to do what’s right for the victims,’ she added.” [Associated Press, 2/18/10]

THE TRUTH: SOME OF THE DUI OFFENDERS WERE CONVICTED BEFORE CORTEZ MASTO HELD OFFICE – AND MOST HAD ALREADY COMPLETED THEIR SENTENCES ON HOUSE ARREST AND COULD NOT BE SENT BACK TO JAIL

Of The 40 DUI Offenders Who Were Released Early Since 2000, Only 8 Could Be Compelled Back To Prison Since Most Offenders Had Completed Their Sentences. “The Reno Gazette-Journal investigation found that 40 of the 113 people convicted since 2000 of killing or severely injuring someone while driving drunk did not spend the mandatory two years in prison, and 22 of those 40 spent fewer than 10 months behind bars. Six of the 40 spent three or four months in prison, the investigation found. Skolnik said he reviewed the newspaper’s list and said most of those offenders already had completed their prison sentences and could not be called back to prison. Only the eight offenders who still are out on house arrest will be affected by the attorney general’s ruling, he said.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 2/18/10]

Mother Of Victim Killed By DUI Offender Hailed AG Cortez Masto Ruling: “It’s Justice.” “Eight people convicted of drunken driving and killing or injuring someone are being removed from a house-arrest program and will be sent back to prison following a Reno Gazette-Journal investigation that found the corrections department had not followed the law. […] Angela Post, whose 21-year-old son, Hudson Post, was killed when Jessica Winkle of Reno drove drunk and turned in front of his motorcycle on Mount Rose Highway in September 2008, called the ruling ‘powerful’ and ‘life-changing.’ ‘I think this wound will heal now — this oozing wound will heal now,’ Post said. ‘It’s not about revenge, it’s the natural consequences being played out. It’s justice.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 2/18/10]

THE TRUTH: DUI OFFENDERS THAT WERE RELEASED EARLY WERE NOT ALLOWED “BACK ON OUR ROADS,” THEY WERE PUT ON HOUSE ARREST

DUI Offenders Who Were Released Early Were Put In House Arrest Program, Not Allowed “Back On Our Roads.”  “On Feb. 14, the Reno Gazette-Journal released a special report saying a 2005 Nevada Supreme Court ruling clarified that people convicted of killing or injuring someone while driving drunk must spend at least two years in prison before being released on house arrest or parole. The RGJ investigation found that 40 of the 113 people convicted of this crime had served less than two years, and 22 of those offenders has served fewer than 10 months behind bars before being released on a house arrest program. Before the story ran, the attorney general’s office said it reviewed the law and found that the Department of Corrections was following proper procedures when it let people out on a house arrest program. But two days after the story ran, Masto called the newspaper and said the legal opinion from her office was wrong.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 3/10/10]

Cortez Masto: “The Law Is Very Clear, And The Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentence Must Be Served Before Any House Arrest.”Order from Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto: “The attorney general has reviewed the law and a relevant Nevada Supreme Court decision and agrees that DUI offenders must spend a minimum of two years in prison. The law is very clear, and the mandatory minimum prison sentence must be served before any house arrest. The attorney general has contacted the Department of Corrections to confirm the reading of this law and the Department of Corrections is taking steps to ensure the two-year minimum sentence is served. The Department of Corrections calculates time served for inmates.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 2/19/10]

Cortez Masto AG Opinion: DUI Offenders Should Get Credit For House Arrest, But It Had To Be Deducted From The Upper End Of Their Prison Term. “Herb Santos, Fuimaono’s lawyer, said he had been concerned about the parole board’s actions because it was not consistent with an opinion by Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto released in March. Masto said the offenders should get credit for the time they spent on house arrest, but it had to be deducted from the upper end of their term. ‘It shows the rules have to be evaluated so the right hand knows what the other hand is doing, and so we have consistent application of the rules for everyone,’ Santos said.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 6/29/10] 

AG Cortez Masto Sponsored Bill To Clarify That People Who Drive Drunk And Kill Or Injure Someone Should Spend A Minimum Of Two Years Behind Bars. “Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, whose opinion in February sent eight drunken-driving offenders back to prison, has filed a bill draft request with the 2011 Legislature that she said aims to clarify the law on house arrest. Masto said Friday that she stands by her position, made in response to a Reno Gazette-Journal investigation, that the law requires people who drive drunk and kill or injure someone to spend a minimum of two years behind bars, not on house arrest. But she said she wants lawmakers to review the law and clarify whether the director of the Nevada Department of Corrections should have the ability to release some DUI offenders on a special program that allows them to serve their time at home.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/17/10]

Text: 20% arrested again. Reno Gazette Journal, 2/19/10. 80% of drunk drivers, killers on our streets. Reno Gazette Journal, 2/19/10. 

Image: Photo of Catherine with “Catherine Cortez Masto” below

Cortez Masto Resurrected The Advisory Coalition On Impaired Driving In Response To DUI Offender Early Release Controversy. “Following an award-winning Reno Gazette-Journal series on DUI issues in Nevada, Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto resurrected the Advisory Coalition on Impaired Driving, which spent six months studying state DUI laws to determine what changes were needed.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 6/8/11]

Headline: Reno Gazette-Journal: “Attorney General Revives Dormant DUI Coalition.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 3/20/10]

AG Cortez Masto Called For Resurrection Of Advisory Coalition On Impaired Driver After Reno Gazette-Journal Reports Revealed Communication Breakdowns And Problems Handling Drunk Driving Cases. “Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto on Friday called for the resurrection of her agency’s Advisory Coalition on Impaired Driving after a series of investigative reports in the Reno Gazette-Journal revealed communication breakdowns and problems in the handling of drunken driving crash cases. ‘The Attorney General wants to hear from advocates so our state can work through these important issues,’ said AG spokeswoman Edie Cartwright. ‘The Advisory Coalition on Impaired Driving is a mechanism to do that.’ Brett Kandt, a special deputy AG and executive director of the Nevada Prosecution Advisory Council, told coalition members in an e-mail that the DUI series in the RGJ has highlighted the ‘potential value’ of the coalition. He said it should be used ‘as a forum for bringing issues to the attention of the agencies responsible for enforcing the DUI laws, to allow us to resolve them and work toward system improvement.’” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 3/20/10]

THE TRUTH: CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO RECEIVED AWARD FOR HER “OUTSTANDING COMMITMENT” AND “EXCELLENT LEADERSHIP” ON PREVENTING DRUNK DRIVING

Century Council Recognized Cortez Masto With 2013 Leadership Award For “Outstanding Commitment” And “Excellent Leadership” To Fighting Drunk Driving And Underage Drinking In Nevada. In December 2013, Century Council press release stated, “Today, The Century Council, a national not-for-profit organization funded by distillers dedicated to fighting drunk driving and underage drinking, recognized Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto with its 2013 Leadership Award. During her tenure she has shown an outstanding commitment to fighting drunk driving and underage drinking in Nevada. The Century Council has been excited to partner with Attorney General Masto over the years. Whether working to improve drunk driving and underage drinking laws, hosting educational events at schools across Nevada or taping public service announcements to encourage discussions about alcohol between adults and youth, Attorney General Masto has provided excellent leadership on preventing drunk driving and underage drinking.” [Century Council press release, 12/18/13]

• Cortez Masto Said She Would Continue To Educate Nevadans About Drug And Alcohol Abuse. In December2013, Century Council press release stated, “It is an honor to receive this award, said Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. I will continue to educate Nevadans, especially children and parents, about the consequences of drug and alcohol abuse. I am thankful to the Century Council for their work on this issue to prevent the loss of another innocent victim.” [Century Council press release, 12/18/13]

THE TRUTH: LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS THAT EMCOMPASS ALMOST EVERY PEACE OFFICER IN NEVADA UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO FOR SENATE

KOH-AM: For The First Time In Nevada History All Law Enforcement Unions In Nevada Endorsed Cortez Masto. “For the first time in Nevada history, all the state’s law enforcement unions and associations have come together for a unanimous endorsement. The organizations backed former Nevada attorney general and candidate for U.S. Senate Catherine Cortez Masto, citing her record of working across the aisle to solve problems for Nevadans. Ron Gareer, career government affairs director for the Police Officers Research Association of Nevada on why they chose her: For the attack on law enforcement today I mean everything we do on the is second guessed by everybody. That lady understands what we’ve gone through, she understands what the families of these officers killed in line of duty are going through. We need that support and that’s why we support opponent republican representative Joe Heck.” [KOH-AM, 7/6/16

Headline: Associated Press: “Nevada Police Unions Back Democrat Cortez Masto For Senate.” [Associated Press, 3/2/16]

Coalition Of Nevada Law Enforcement Unions Endorsed Cortez Masto For U.S. Senate. “A coalition of Nevada law enforcement unions is announcing support for Democratic Senate candidate Catherine Cortez Masto. Cortez Masto’s campaign announced endorsements Wednesday from the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, Peace Officers Research of Nevada, the Fraternal Order of Police and the Southern Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs. The latter group includes the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and organizations representing Henderson and Las Vegas police supervisors.” [Associated Press, 3/2/16]

The Law Enforcement Unions Cited Cortez Masto’s Work To Fight Human Trafficking And Support For Funding More Police Officers As Reasons For The Endorsement. “Cortez Masto’s previous job as Nevada’s attorney general involved frequent work with law enforcement. Representatives from the unions cited her initiatives to fight human trafficking and her support of funding more police hires as reasons for the endorsement.” [Associated Press, 3/2/16]

Cortez Masto Picked Up Support From Nevada Police Unions.“Former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) picked up endorsements from the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Peace Officers Reserve of Nevada, and the Southern Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs Wednesday.” [National Journal, 3/3/16]

REALITY: CONGRESSMAN HECK VOTED REPEATEDLY AGAINST GIVING NEVADA LAW ENFORCEMENT THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO FIGHT CRIME

Heck Voted For Budget Control Act, Known As Sequestration.In August 2011, Heck voted for: “Passage of the bill that would provide a process to reduce the deficit by up to $2.4 trillion. The measure would allow the president to raise the debt limit immediately by $400 billion, with an additional $500 billion subject to a resolution of disapproval. It would set discretionary spending caps that would reduce the deficit by $917 billion in fiscal 2012 through 2021 and establish a firewall between security and non-security spending for fiscal 2012 and 2013. It would establish a bipartisan, bicameral committee tasked with making recommendations to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion. It would require across-the-board cuts to non-exempt discretionary and mandatory accounts by up to $1.2 trillion over fiscal 2013 through 2021 if committee reductions totaling $1.2 trillion were not enacted. The measure would require Congress to vote on a balanced-budget constitutional amendment by the end of 2011. It also would provide for an additional debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, subject to a resolution of disapproval.” The bill passed by a vote of 269-161. [CQ, 8/1/11; S. 365, Vote 690,8/1/11]

Sequestration Cut COPS Grants By 44 Percent. “Among the programs that would be cut in January if sequestration takes effect are the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which was cut 34 percent in fiscal 2012, and the Community Oriented Policing Services hiring grants, which saw a 44 percent cut. Both programs are priorities for states and localities and have advocates on both sides of the aisle in Congress.” [Roll Call, 10/24/12]

Survey Found Federal Criminal Justice Grants Have Declined 43 Percent Over The Past Two Years Impacting Programs, Including The Hiring Of Police Officers. “A survey released by the National Criminal Justice Association and the Vera Institute of Justice earlier this month found that state and local law enforcement agencies already have been forced to make cutbacks in personnel and services as a result of declining federal aid, which the two organizations said is at ‘historically low levels.’ Federal funding for criminal justice grant programs has declined 43 percent over the past two years, the survey said. The cuts have affected programs that pay for drug interdiction programs, drug treatment for prisoners, criminal background checks, the incarceration of immigrants imprisoned on criminal charges and the hiring of police officers.” [Roll Call, 10/24/12]

Las Vegas Metro Benefited From COPS Program. In June 2015, Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart F. Delery wrote, “For example, after a dramatic increase in officer-involved shootings in 2011, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Sheriff recognized a problem and called the COPS Office for help. As part of a multi-year, voluntary collaborative review process, the COPS Office identified 75 findings and made recommendations that the department could implement to reduce the number of officer-involved shootings. Three years after the initial report was issued, the Las Vegas department has implemented almost every recommendation. Officer-involved shootings involving unarmed suspects have been significantly reduced. The use of tasers, pepper spray, and batons has declined. And the number of arrests has gone down, while public safety and community relations have improved considerably. Las Vegas is just one of the jurisdictions that have benefited from the COPS Office’s expertise.” [U.S. Justice Department, “The Importance Of Preserving Critical Funding For Community Policing,” 6/3/15]

Local Police Departments Were Among Those Feeling The Pain Most Acutely, When The Federal Government Slashed $38 Billion Resulting In The Loss Of Hundreds Of Millions In U.S. Justice Department Grants. “When the federal government slashed $38 billion from its budget last month, among those feeling the pain most acutely were local police departments. The loss of hundreds of millions in U.S. Justice Department grants — a casualty of the 11th-hour spending compromise — will affect everything from obtaining bulletproof vests to maintaining already dwindling police forces for some struggling Chicago-area law enforcement agencies.” [Chicago Tribune, 5/11/11]

Heck Has Voted Four Times For Republican Budgets That Would Slash Federal Aid To State And Local Governments. In April 2011, Heck voted for:” Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would allow $2.859 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal 2012, including up to $1.019 trillion in non-emergency discretionary spending. It calls for $659 billion in security spending and $360 billion in non-security spending. It proposes converting the federal share of Medicaid to a block grant to states. It calls for converting Medicare for persons currently younger than 55 into a ‘premium support system’ through which the government would pay private insurance companies directly for each enrollee. It also proposes consolidating the current six tax brackets and cutting the corporate tax rate and the top individual tax rate to 25 percent. It assumes the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2012 and projects that the budget deficit would be reduced to $391 billion by fiscal 2021.” The bill was adopted by a vote of 235-193. [CQ, 4/15/11; H Con Res 34, Vote 277, 4/15/11; H Con Res 112, Vote 151, 3/29/12; H.Con.Res 96, Vote 177, 4/10/14; S.Con.Res 11, Vote 183, 4/30/15]

Ryan Budget Cuts To State And Local Services Would Be Far Deeper Than Cuts Under Sequestration. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,  12/5/12]

Ryan Budget Would Cut Funds To Hire Police Officers & Buy Equipment, Shifting The Cost To State And Local Budgets. “This form of discretionary federal aid would be subject to cuts under the Ryan budget.  If it were scaled back substantially, states and localities would need to bear a larger share of the costs of disaster response and recovery, or attempt to make do with less during difficult times. Federal discretionary funds also help states, cities, and other local governments hire police officers. Big cuts in funds to hire police officers would shift more of the cost of hiring these officers to state and local budgets. […] Justice Assistance Grants (JAG).  Most of these grants go to help local law enforcement agencies train police officers, supply them with police cars, bullet proof vests, and other equipment, cover overtime, and deter crime. The rest helps states and localities operate other aspects of their criminal justice systems, including prosecuting criminals, taking other actions to reduce crime, and protecting victims and witnesses. Funds to hire state & local police officers (COPS).  These funds help state and local law enforcement agencies hire police officers.  In 2011, these grants helped to fund or maintain over 1,000 law enforcement positions nationally.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/5/12]

Ryan Budget Would Cut Grants To State And Local Government By 22 Percent. “The Ryan plan would cut non-defense discretionary programs nearly $1.2 trillion below the already tough annual budget caps imposed on these programs by the Budget Control Act. Under the Ryan budget, funding for these programs would be cut by an additional 22 percent in 2014 and later years beyond the cuts already needed to comply with the BCA caps. If grants to state and local governments were cut by the same 22 percent that non-defense discretionary funding as a whole would be reduced, then states and localities would lose nearly $28 billion in 2014 alone. Over the nine years through 2021, states and localities would absorb a cumulative federal funding cut of $247 billion.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/5/12]

Heck Voted Against AB 461 That Ensured Clark County Used The MORE COPS Tax To Hire More Police And Allowed Nye County To Impose A Half-Percent Sales Tax In Order To Hire More Police And Firefighters. According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest of AB 461, “The Clark County Sales and Use Tax Act of 2005 authorized the Board of County Commissioners of Clark County to impose up to one-half of 1 percent sales and use tax to employ and equip additional police officers for various police departments in Clark County. Section 1 of this bill adds a requirement that any governmental entity that authorizes expenditures from the tax revenues for a police department must submit periodic reports to the Legislature concerning the use of that money, and authorizes the Legislative Commission to review and investigate those expenditures.  Sections 3-22 of this bill are modeled on the provisions of the Clark County Sales and Use Tax Act of 2005, and authorize the Board of County Commissioners of Nye County to impose an additional sales tax of up to one-half of 1 percent for the purposes of recruiting, employing and equipping additional firefighters, deputy sheriffs and other public safety personnel and constructing, improving and equipping public safety facilities in Nye County. Any proposed change in the use of the proceeds of the tax must be submitted to the voters and be approved by the Legislature. Section 17.5 of this bill contains requirements identical to those in section 1 of this bill concerning reporting of expenditures of the tax revenues and the review and investigation of those expenditures.” Heck Voted Against The Bill. [AB 461, LCB Digest; Senate Floor Vote, 5/25/07]

Heck Voted Against $3 Million For COPS Program, $1 Million For Violence Against Women Prevention And Prosecution Programs, And Grants To Address Backlogs Of Sexual Assault Kits. In May 2014, Heck voted against a: “Moore, D-Wis., motion to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment which would increase by $1 million each, funds provided in the bill for Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution programs, grants to combat violence against women, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance and grants to address backlogs of sexual assault kits. It would increase by $3 million each, funds provided in the bill for Community Oriented Policing Services and for hiring under this program.” The motion was rejected by a 185-220 vote. [CQ,5/30/14; motion to recommit H.R. 4660, Vote 268, 5/30/14]

Heck Voted Against Increasing Funds By $20.5 Million For Programs That Aid In The Prevention And Prosecution Of Acts Of Violence Against Women. In May 2012, Heck voted against a: “Nadler, D-N.Y., motion to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would increase by $20.5 million the amount provided in the bill for programs that aid in the prevention and prosecution of acts of violence against women. It would reduce by the same amount general administrative funding for the Commerce and Justice departments and the Office of Science and Technology.” The motion was rejected by a 181-233 vote. [CQ,5/10/12; motion to recommit H.R. 5326, Vote 248, 5/10/12]

Heck Voted Against Providing An Additional $3 Million For The Violence Against Women Prevention And Prosecution Programs And $3 Million For The Juvenile Justice Programs.In June 2015, Heck voted against the: “Brownley, D-Calif., motion to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions to report back immediately with an amendment that would provide an additional $3 million for sexual assault victims assistance within the Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs account and an additional $3 million for missing and exploited children programs in the Juvenile Justice Programs account. It would decrease funding for the Justice Information Technology Account by $6 million.” The motion was rejected by a vote of 184-240. [CQ, 6/3/15; H.R. 2578, Vote 296,6/3/15]

Text: Catherine Cortez Masto. Negligent. Dangerous [emphasis in ad]. NRSC is responsible for the content of this ad. Paid for by NRSC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. www.nrsc.org.

Image: Photo of Catherine

Heck Criticized Republicans For Publicly Denouncing Trump, Saying It “Only Comes Back To Look Bad On The Party As A Whole.” “With the current presidential election, many Republicans are coming forward to say that they will not be voting for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, in November. Heck said that Republicans publicly denouncing Donald Trump only comes back to look bad on the party as a whole.” [The Record Courier, 8/12/16]

Heck Refused To Denounce Trump: “You’re Entitled To Vote For Whoever You Want, But You Don’t Have To Add Gasoline To The Fire.” “‘You’re entitled to vote for whoever you want, but you don’t have to add gasoline to the fire,’ said Heck. Heck said that the important thing would be for the party to come together in November to defeat the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.” [The Record Courier, 8/12/16]

Jon Ralston: Congressman Heck Has “Chosen Party Over Trump’s Noxious Candidacy. So Let’s Just Call It What It Is: Fear Of Political Damage.” In his morning flash, Jon Ralston wrote, “First, Gov. Brian Sandoval expanded on his support for whomever the GOP nominee is and repeated his silliness that he caucused for Marco Rubio but does not endorse him. What? Then, after I mocked it, his press secretary reminded me that Sandoval once said he would not back Trump (as if that’s helpful). It’s a simple choice, really: You either take a stand against the guy or you don’t. Sandoval, Sen. Dean Heller, Rep. Joe Heck and others have chosen party over Trump’s noxious candidacy. So let’s just call it what it is: Fear of political damage.” [Ralston Morning Flash, 3/3/16]

Heck: “I Have High Hopes That We Will See Donald Trump Become The Next President.” “‘I have high hopes that we will see Donald Trump become the next president,’ he said. ‘Though I don’t necessarily agree with how he talks about women and minorities and all of his policy positions, but if he wants to make America great again by bringing jobs back to America, then I am willing to help him achieve those goals and hold him accountable. And as the next U.S. senator from Nevada, I will make sure I stand as a check against anything that is not in our best interest.’” [Pahrump Valley Times, 6/1/16]

KTNV: Heck “Swatted Away Suggestions” That Trump’s Rhetoric And Immigration Policies Would Hurt His Chances. “Heck also swatted away suggestions that Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump’s divisive rhetoric and plans to deport 11 million undocumented migrants would hurt his chances, saying that he won his demographically diverse congressional district by increasingly larger margins over the last three elections.” [KTNV, 3/14/16]

Heck On Donald Trump: “He’s Out There Talking About What He Needs To Talk About To Run For President.”“So, what does Congressman Joe Heck, Nevada’s Republican candidate for US Senate, think of the guy at the top of the GOP presidential polls? ‘I don’t talk about Donald,’ Heck told News 3 after a morning event put on by the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce. ‘He’s out there talking about what he needs to talk about to run for President,’ Heck added after ‘Eggs and Issues,’ the Chamber’s breakfast debrief with local newsmakers. The Thursday event was held at Vdara in CityCenter.” [KSNV,8/27/15]

…AND HECK AND TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICIES THAT COULD TEAR APART NEVADA FAMILIES AND PUT DREAMERS AT RISK OF DEPORTATION

Headline: NBC: “Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants ‘Have To Go.’” [NBC News, 8/16/15]

Trump: “We Have To” Rescind DACA, Deport DREAMers And Break Up Immigrant Families. “Speaking on Trump’s gilded private plane as it idled on a runway in Des Moines, Iowa, the real-estate mogul and Republican presidential front runner offered the first outlines of the immigration policy proposals he’d implement from the Oval Office. Trump said, to begin, ‘we have to’ rescind Obama’s executive order offering those brought to the U.S. illegally as children — known as DREAMers — protection from deportation, as well as Obama’s unilateral move to delay deportation for their families as well. ‘We have to make a whole new set of standards’ for those immigrating to the U.S.” [NBC News, 8/16/15] 

Trump Promised Mass Deportation Force To Remove 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants. “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday indicated that he would use a ‘deportation force’ to execute his plan of removing more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States when pressed on how he would execute a mass deportation.” [Washington Post, 11/11/15]

Headline: Politico: “Dreamers Face Nightmare Of Trump’s Deportation Force.” [Politico, 5/29/16]

Undocumented Immigrants Are On A Collision Course With Donald Trump’s Deportation Force. “The Supreme Court’s deliberations over President Barack Obama’s immigration order are putting that potential deportation relief on a collision course with Donald Trump’s deportation force. It’s still an open question whether the shorthanded court will ultimately determine that Obama has the authority to defer deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants. […] The means that people living in the shadows will possibly be exposing themselves just as Trump inches closer to the White House and decides whether to fulfill his pledge to use a deportation force to kick out the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.” [Politico, 5/29/16]

Instead Of Supporting DACA & DAPA Protections, Heck Criticized Obama’s Executive Actions. In December 2013, Joe Heck wrote in an op-ed, “I voted to defund implementation of a presidential executive order called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. That order, issued just months before the 2012 election in a transparent attempt to score political points, did not merely prevent deportation for young undocumented individuals. [Rep. Joe Heck Op-ed, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/7/13]

Heck Voted To Defund Obama’s Executive Order That Halted Deportations Of DREAMers. “While Heck doesn’t currently support repealing President Obama’s executive order to halt deportations of undocumented immigrants’ children, he did vote to defund the program before it had been implemented.” [National Journal, 7/6/15]

Heck Voted For Amendment To Bar The Use Of Funds To Finalize, Implement, Administer, Or Enforce Prosecutorial Discretion To Prioritize The Removal Of Certain Illegal Immigrants. In June 2012, Heck voted for a: “King, R-Iowa, amendment that would bar the use of funds in the bill to finalize, implement, administer or enforce Immigration and Customs Enforcement memos regarding prosecutorial discretion to prioritize the removal of certain illegal immigrants.” The amendment was adopted 238-175.[CQ, 6/7/12; H.Amdt. 1266 to H.R. 5855, Vote 363, 6/7/12]

Heck Voted For Amendment To Bar The Use Of Funds To Finalize, Implement, Administer, Or Enforce Prosecutorial Discretion To Prioritize The Removal Of Illegal Immigrants Who Came To The U.S. As Children. In June 2013, Heck voted for a: “King, R-Iowa, amendment that would bar the use of funds provided in the bill to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce a number of policies and memorandums within the Homeland Security Department, including ones pertaining to prosecutorial discretion for illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children.” The amendment passed by 224-201. [CQ, 6/6/13, H.R. 2217, Vote 208, 6/6/13]

Heck Voted To Block The Executive Branch From Deferring From Deportation Any Undocumented Immigrants. In December 2014, Heck voted for: “Passage of the bill that would prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the United States. It also would prohibit the administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully present or had lawful immigration status. It would specify that any action taken by the executive branch to circumvent the measure’s prohibitions would be ‘null and void and without legal effect.’” The measure passed by a vote of 219-197. [CQ, 12/4/14; H.R. 5759, Vote 550, 12/4/14]

Heck Voted For An Amendment To Bar The Use Of Funds For Implementation Of Immigration Executive Actions, Including 2012 Actions. In January, 2015, Heck voted for an: “Aderholt, R-Ala., amendment that would bar the use of funds in the bill to implement the administration’s immigration policies or to grant any federal benefit to any illegal immigrant as a result of those policies. The amendment would bar funding for the implementation of the executive actions announced in November 2014, four of the so-called ‘Morton memos’ from 2011 and 2012 focusing on prosecutorial discretion and changes to immigration enforcement priorities and any substantially similar policies issued after Jan. 9, 2015. It also would state that such immigration policies have no statutory or constitutional basis.” The measure was adopted in Committee of the Whole by a vote of 237-190. [CQ, 1/14/15; HR 240, Vote 29, 1/14/15]

House Votes To End DACA Puts Thousands Of Young DREAMers At Risk For Deportation. “House Republicans voted on Friday to strip protections from undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, putting more than a half-million young people at risk for deportation despite their longstanding ties to the United States.” [Huffington Post, 8/2/14]

DACA Protects DREAMers And Allows Them To Receive Work Permits. “When President Obama used executive action to create the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program four years ago, this was the group he was seeking to protect. They were, for the most part, children whose parents came to this country illegally, and either brought them along or sent for them later. Many had no recollection of their home country, spoke English, and argued that they should be given the rights and privileges of the only country they really knew, including temporary two-year work permits.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/22/16]

DACA Has Protected More Than 12,000 Young Nevadans From Deportation. “Four years ago this summer, with the stroke of a pen, President Obama changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people here illegally. If they met certain conditions, they could stay – temporarily. The program is known as ‘DACA,’ short for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. One of them is Victoria Ruiz, who turns 20 on Tuesday. For the past four years, she’s been breathing a sigh of relief. ‘I am one of those dreamers. I arrived to the United States when I was 8 years old,’ Ruiz told reporters today at Del Sol High School, where she served as the kickoff speaker for a Democratic campaign event. Ruiz is one of the 12,000 young Nevadans the President has protected from deportation.” [KSNV, 8/15/16]