District Court judges in Clark County would no longer have unbridled discretion to seal court records from public view under a legislative proposal introduced Friday.

Assembly Bill 519 would prohibit judges across the state from sealing a court record unless:

• A "preponderance of the evidence" shows that releasing the information publicly will hurt the "public interest" or pose a danger to the public.

• No method other than sealing a record exists to assure those safeguards.

The measure would require a judge to have a separate hearing to weigh the merits of sealing a particular court record, and the judge would be required to notify the public about the hearing beforehand and allow the public to present evidence at that hearing.

The bill also would require a judge, when sealing a court record under the set guidelines, to unseal the record at the "earliest possible time after the circumstances necessitating the sealing no longer exist."

The bill was drafted at the request of Democrats and Republicans on the Assembly Judiciary Committee after they read a series of articles printed last month in the Review-Journal about the sealing of more than 100 lawsuits since 2000.

In the articles, judges claimed to have inherent authority to seal lawsuits, but critics said keeping lawsuits from public view is generally prohibited by Nevada law.

"There is a very clear need for it (the bill), and I think it is important for the Legislature to get involved in what is in the best interest of the public, particularly when it comes to public health and safety," said Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks and chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which requested the bill be drafted.

Since the particular language of the bill wasn't available until late Friday morning, Assembly Minority Leader Garn Mabey, R-Las Vegas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Friday afternoon that he and other committee members hadn't yet seen the bill.

As a result, he declined to comment.

The four-page proposal states that it "prohibits the district court from sealing a judicial public record unless a preponderance of the evidence indicates the existence of certain factors."

Some of the criteria include:

• A judge can't seal a record that would conceal a public hazard, which the bill defines as any instrument, device, procedure or product that could cause death or substantial bodily harm.

• A judge can seal a record when it "furthers the public interest."

• A judge can seal a record when dissemination of the information would pose a "significant and imminent danger to the public interest."

• A judge can seal a record when there is a "substantial probability" that sealing the record will protect the public from a perceived danger.

State law and the state Constitution do not give District Court judges in Clark County the power to seal court records or entire lawsuits, but Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle and Elizabeth Gonzales, presiding judge in the court's civil division, said in January that judges have "inherent authority" to seal lawsuits at their discretion.

Hardcastle, who couldn't be reached for comment Friday, said in January that judges should not be hamstrung by a state law or guidelines when sealing records in civil cases. While written guidelines already exist regarding the circumstances under which criminal and family court cases can be sealed, Hardcastle said, civil cases present many more variables, and that a judge needs flexibility to deal with them.

Anderson said the bill was crafted after similar laws in other states, and was written so that it shouldn't interfere with the constitutional powers of the courts.

"There are some (states' laws) that are more open and some that are much more restrictive," Anderson said. "We are willing to let the judge make a call, but there has to be proper notification and there has to be a statement (by the judge) and he has to disseminate that in some way."

The call for legislation was prompted, Anderson said, by lawmakers who read the series of articles, which began Feb. 11 in the Review-Journal, about Clark County District Court judges sealing 115 lawsuits from 2000 to late 2006.

No information is available to the public about those lawsuits, but the Review-Journal was provided with the identities of litigants in each case.

The plaintiffs and defendants include people and organizations that are wealthy or wield influence in politics, business, medicine and the courts.

Because the bill doesn't involve a partisan issue, Anderson said, the only obstacle that could keep the proposal locked up in the committee, which would prevent it from being voted on by the entire Assembly, is the workload facing the committee during the next three weeks.

The committee is scheduled to consider 103 bills by an April 13 deadline, he said.

"I think it's an important discussion to have, and I am going to make sure -- from my perspective -- that it will be heard in committee," Anderson said.