Republican Nat'l Committee v. Eighth Judicial District Court
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Nevada?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Nevada. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's decision denying a request for mandamus or injunctive relief related to the political composition of the persons verifying signatures used for mail ballots in Clark County, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) brought a petition asserting that the composition of the temporary workers hired from employment agencies to verify signatures on returned mail ballots disproportionately excluded Republicans, and therefore, the Clark County Registrar violated his duty under Nev. Rev. Stat. 293B.360(2) to ensure that the members of each special election board represent all political parties "as equally as possible." The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that RNC failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.
Download PDF
138 Nev., Advance Opinion Ca IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TFIE STATE OF NEVADA. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF •CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CLARK COUNTY; CLARK COUNTY ELECTION DEPARTMENT; JOE P. GLORIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CLARK COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS; DSCC; AND DCCC, Real Parties •in Interest. No. 85604 Original petition for a, writ of mandamus seeking relief related to the political composition of the group of persons verifying signatures used for mail ballots in Clark County. Petition denied. Pisanelli Bice PLLC and Jordan T. Smith, Las Vegas, for Petitioner. Steven B. Wolfson, District Attorney, and. Lisa Logsdon Deptlty District Attorney, Clark County, for Real Parties in Interest Clark County and Joe P. Gloria. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A ti3 Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, and Bradley S. Schrager and Daniel Bravo, Las Vegas; Elias Law Group LLP and Christopher Dodge, Washington D.C., for Real Parties in Interest DSCC and DCCC. Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. and V.R. Bohman, Las Vegas, for Amicus Curiae Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, Inc. BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, HARDESTY, C.J., and PARRAGUIRRE, STIGLICH, CADISH, PICKERING, and HERNDON, JJ. OPINION' PER CURIAM: This emergency, original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court decision, reflected in November 3, 2022, minutes, denying petitioner's request for mandamus or injunctive relief related to the political composition of the persons verifying signatures used for mail ballots in Clark County.' Respondents timely filed a response, as directed. Because no clear legal right to the relief requested has been demonstrated, we deny the petition. 'We originally resolved this petition on November 8, 2022, in an order denying petition. Petitioner filed a motion to publish the order as an opinion. The motion was granted, and we now issue this opinion in place of the order. See NRAP 36(f). Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, Inc. (RITE) has filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioner. The motion is granted; the amicus brief was filed on November 8, 2022. 2 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 I947A 2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Clark County Registrar, real party in interest joe P. Gloria, initially hired 64 temporary workers from employment agencies to verify the signatures on returned mail ballots; of these, 23 are Democrats, 8 are Republicans, and 33 are Nonpartisans. An additional 6 Republican workers were later hired to verify signatures. Nevertheless, given these figures, petitioner Republican National Committee (RNC) asserts that the signature verifiers' composition disproportionately excludes Republicans and, consequently, the Registrar has violated his duty under NRS 293B.360(2) to ensure that the "members of each [special election] board must represent all political parties as equally as possible." RNC sought relief from the district court, and the district court denied RNC's petition but has not yet entered a written order reflecting its decision. Consequently, RNC has sought emergency writ relief from this court, which petition we will consider, given the urgent mid-election circumstances and lack of a written order. Las Vegas Review-Journal v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. 40, 43, 412 P.3d 23, 26 (2018) (entertaining a petition for writ relief from the district court's oral preliminary injunction, because the oral pronouncement could not be immediately appealed and a later appeal could not afford adequate relief). Although the Registrar explained that the Makeup of the team varies significantly each day due to personal employee reasons, RNC seeks an order mandating immediate compliance with NRS 293B.360(2) going forward because, it claims, signature verification is currently ongoing and there is no assurance that the Registrar will continue to hire and schedule signature verifiers in a manner that effectuates NRS 293B.360(2)'s equal representation requirement. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A -3 DISC USSIO As petitioner, it i.s RNC's burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested. Halverson v. Sec'y of State, 124 Nev. 484, 487, 186 P.3d 893, 896 (2008) ("A petition will only be granted when the petit.ioner has a clear right to the relief requested."); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, -88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) ("Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that. extraordinary relief is warranted."). W6 review issues of statutory interpretation d.e novo, even in the context of a writ petition. Int'l Game-Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 NeVe 193, 198, 179 P.3d 556, 559 (2008). • NRS 293B.360(1) provides that the Registrar shall create" a computer program and processing accuracy board a.nd "may create" other beards, including a "mail ballot inspection board" and "Much additional boards : as the [Registrar] deems n6cessary for the expeditious precessing With respect to such. boards, the Registrar inust ensure that of ballot."3 the members "represent-all political parties as equally as possible." Nothing in NRS 293B.360 fashions or addresses any board for signature verification purposes or requires the Registrar to create a board 6f signature Verifiers. See also NR.S 293B.365 & NRS 293B.370 (repealed) (defining the duties of the central ballot inspection board a:nclfthe absent ballot Mailing precind inspeetion board, respectively, neither .of which mention signature verification). Rather, a different statute, NRS' 293.269927, specifiCallY governs the procedures for verifying the signatures used for mail ballots. When mail ballots are returned, "the clork or an employee in the office of 3"Clerk" and "Registrar" are used interchangeably. See NRS 293 044. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 0 0 the clerk" is charged with verifying the voter's signature on the return envelope. NRS 293.269927(1). In Clark County, the signatures on mail ballot return envelopes are initially checked by electronic means. If the electronic device is unable to match the voter's signature against the voter application signatures on file with the county clerk, the signature must be verified manually. See NRS 293.269927(2). To do this, 'Nile clerk or employee" reviews the signature used for the ballot against all the signatures available in the clerk's records, and "[i]f at least two employees in the office of the clerk" discern a reasonable question as to whether the signatures match, the clerk must contact the voter for confirmation that the signature belongs to the voter. NRS 293.269927(3). Thus, NRS 293.269927 provides that the Registrar and his employees will conduct the signature verification process, and it appears that this is the process being followed by the Registrar. The statute contains no requirement that 'a board verify the signatures, nor is there any requirement therein that signatu.re verification on mail ballot returns is done by persons of different political parties. Cf. NRS 293.277 (signature verification at polling places to be conducted by election board officers); NRS 293.217 (requiring merely that election boards at polling places "must not all be of the same political party"). The Legislature haš placed such express requirements in other statutes governing the election process, and it is for the Legislature, not this court, to determine whether similar requirements are warranted for signature verification of mail ballots. Nevertheless, RNC insists that, even if the creation of a board was not required, the Registrar necessarily created a board when he hired a group of temporary workers to aSsist him with conducting the election based on NRS 293B.027, which defines "election board": "Election board' SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A 5 means the persons appointed by each, county or city clerk to assist in the conduct of an election." Essentially. RNC appears to argue that anyone assisting the Registrar in election efforts is necessarily an election board to which NRS 293B.360(2) applies. We decline to read such. a substantive requirement into a definitional statute in this manner, without consideration of the statutory scheme specifically governing elections and the verification of mail ballot signatures discussed above. See generally Williams v. State, Dep't of Corr:, 133 Nev. 594, 601, 402 P.3d 1260, 1265 (20.17) (explaining that "the more specific statute will take precedence" over a general statute). Although an election board is comprised of persons appointed to assist with an election, the definitional statute does not impose a requirement that all persons verifying mail ballot signatures constitute a board that must comply with NRS 293B.360(2). Accordingly, RNC has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief requested, and we deny the petition. /Jsict.A. Hardesty , C.J. Stiglich Parraguirr , j. , J. Pickering Cadish SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 10) 1447A
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
