Why Gov. Lombardo Vetoes Align With Coalition values
Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed two HOA bills both around a single principle: HOA covenants are “community constitutions.” Legislators should not rewrite those contracts unless a compelling constitutional interest is at stake.
AB 185 (child-care facilities). In two pages the Governor emphasized that buyers enter an HOA “with the clear understanding that certain activities are governed by agreed-upon rules.” Overriding those rules for commercial child-care ventures, he wrote, would “threaten the uniformity and stability those communities are designed to protect.” The Governor's full veto message can be found here.
SB 121 (landscaping & collections). The message echoed the same theme, stressing that HOAs “possess a nuanced understanding of local needs” and that state mandates would “improperly override” homeowner expectations. The Governor's full veto message can be found here.
The Governor's reasoning is in line with the Coalition's advocacy- HOAs are a form of local governance guided by a declaration (a contract) and set of laws (NRS 116), effectively forming the community's constitution- where changes, especially those stripping HOAs of a key element of their regulatory authority, should not be taken lightly by lawmakers. Thankfully, the Governor stood by HOA owners across Nevada when the vast majority of their representatives failed to do so.
A Partisan Split—With One Notable Exception
Both of the bills passed, with few exceptions, on party lines- Republicans opposed, Democrats supported.
There was one exception to the Governor veto reasoning - SB 201. The new legislation prohibits an HOA from enforcing restrictions established in their governing documents.
SB 201: Why the Coalition Objects to the Signed Bill
The Coalition opposed the bill finding lawmakers were injecting themselves unnecessarily into private contracts. Importantly, this new NRS 116 provision grants prevailing party language treating the enforcement of this rule differently from other rule. All other rules under NRS 116 do not explicitly allow prevailing party provisions, thereby overriding the American Rule for the payment of attorney fees and cost. NRS 116.4117 already addresses a right of action if actual damages are involved. The word "action" in Section 4 also creates ambiguity.
As a general issue of sound public policy the Coalition sees private right of action inappropriate for NRS 116 related violations outside actual damages. Attorney fees and costs can be weaponized and should be avoided at all cost when involving HOAs. Read more here.
Bottom Line
While the Coalition supports religious freedom, the Legislature could have protected displays without adding an unnecessary, potentially abusive, private right of action. We will monitor early cases closely and consider clarifying amendments in 2027 or regulatory interpretation by the Nevada Real Estate Division Administrator.
What Happens Next?
No veto overrides. With both chambers adjourned sine die and neither bill clearing the two-thirds threshold, the vetoes stand.
Rulemaking watch. State agencies will begin updating NRS 116 guidance to reflect SB 201’s new religious-display section (§ 1). Expect Real Estate Division FAQs by late summer.
2026 interim study potential. Several lawmakers hinted at revisiting HOA contract pre-emption in an interim committee; we will monitor.
Take Action?
Tell us your HOA story. Did AB 185 or SB 121 address a real problem—or would they have created new ones?
Support Coalition- join us. Together we can keep Nevada’s 500,000 HOA households governed by clear, stable, and homeowner-approved rules—with appropriate legislative help.
Readers will find more on AB 185, SB 121 and all HOA bills enrolled here or failed here.
Readers can find out how their lawmakers voter on all bills of the 2025 session here.
