(Chuck Muth) – Grab a cup of coffee, this is gonna be a long but important one…
As noted in yesterday’s email, the Pigpen Project got “sucker punched” by something the Nevada Secretary of State’s (SOS) office did a couple days ago.
It was intentionally cryptic because one thing I’ve learned since starting to work on this election integrity “stuff” way back in 2020 is that election laws are so complicated and convoluted that what you “assume” is correct in one section of the law is conflicted by another section of the law that you might have missed.
That’s the main reason I don’t automatically jump to conclusions when we find something and instead reach out to election officials for verification and confirmation before proceeding.
It’s the responsible thing to do.
And while we’ve experienced an excellent line of communication with the various county clerks and registrars with this project, we’ve not had that same level of cooperative communication with the Secretary of State’s office.
And that’s what ultimately caused the brouhaha yesterday. Here are the details…
Using official government data provided by various election departments and the United States Post Office (USPS), we’ve been able to use a new software program to identify voters who have permanently moved from where they’re registered to another state, another county, or another precinct within their county.
However, they’re still listed on the voter rolls at their old address. And this presents two problems…
1.) If they remain on the “Active” voter list, that means a mail-in ballot will be sent to their old address where someone could obtain the ballot and vote it unlawfully in the voter’s name. That leaves the voter vulnerable to being accused of committing voting fraud even if they had nothing to do with it.
2.) If they’ve moved to a different county, or a different precinct within a county, that means they’ll be voting for various candidates to represent them who will not be representing them because they don’t actually live in the districts where they’re voting.
And that dilutes the votes of voters who actually DO live in those districts.
Now originally, back around January, we conferred with election officials in Clark County and decided to submit suspected moved voters to the Registrar of Voters (ROV) under a section of law (Section 530) that triggers the sending of a verification postcard to confirm the voter’s residency at the address where they’re registered.
This is known as “list maintenance” and was determined to be the ideal way to handle this situation.
That way suspected moved voters would be addressed as we found them rather than waiting to submit them all at one time in bulk. It would make it easier and less time-consuming for the ROV, which was simultaneously in the middle of conducting elections.
However, back in March the SOS – without our knowledge (we obtained a copy later) – sent a memo to the state’s county clerks and registrars discouraging the counties from acting upon our submissions for “list maintenance.”
It advised the counties that, under state law (NRS), they were under NO OBLIGATION to work with us and process our submissions. They *could,* but they didn’t have to.
Worse, the SOS memo told the counties they weren’t even allowed to do so without the expressed permission of their county commissions. I totally disagree with that opinion, but that’s what the SOS declared.
The memo went on to suggest that “external parties” – such as the Pigpen Project – use the “challenge” process – as outlined in Sections 535 and Section 547 of NRS – rather than use the “list maintenance” process.
In a follow-up memo in April – again, issued without our knowledge (we obtained a copy later) – the counties were advised that external parties such as the Pigpen Project were only able to “participate in the voter registration process by making challenges” under Section 547 and Section 535.
Section 547 challenges are extremely difficult to make. They may ONLY be filed by a voter in the same precinct as the challenged voter, can only be filed in a brief window between 25-30 days before an election, and must be based on “personal knowledge” that the voter had moved.
While we didn’t have “personal knowledge” of the voter himself/herself, we DID have personal knowledge – based on information from approved government sources – that the voter had moved.
So in trying to play by the rules of the game, we submitted a dozen or so “test” challenges in Clark County under Section 547 in May – 30 days before the June 11 primary election.
They were ultimately rejected on the ground that the “personal knowledge” requirement, as defined in the law, was not met; that personal knowledge of the official government data didn’t equate to “personal knowledge of the registered voter.”
Ugh. Back to the drawing board.
So we looked closer at the requirements for filing Section 535 challenges – and they are significantly different. They can be filed by ANY voter at ANY time and the “personal knowledge” requirement isn’t of “the registered voter,” but “of the facts set forth” in the challenge.
Well, that’s a horse of a completely different color.
Under Section 535, I am allowed to challenge a voter who doesn’t live in my precinct, can challenge a voter at any time, not just 30 days before and election, and must have “personal knowledge” of the FACT that official government records – particularly National Change of Address (NCOA) information from the post office – show the voter had moved and no longer resides where he or she is registered.
So on July 29, 2024, I filed just under 4,000 such challenges under Section 535 with 13 of the state’s 17 counties. And last week I sent a public records request to those 13 counties asking whether my challenges had been processed.
Six counties – Douglas, Humboldt, Lander, Pershing, Storey, and White Pine – responded and confirmed that they received the challenges and processed them as required by law.
THANK YOU!
Two counties – Carson City and Clark – have acknowledged receipt of the challenges but have not confirmed if they were processed and acted upon.
Four counties – Churchill, Elko, Lyon, and Nye – have acknowledged receipt of the challenges but refused to take action on them.
Only Washoe County has thus far failed to acknowledge receipt of the challenges or advised if they were or were not going to do anything with them.
All of which lead to the Secretary of State dust-up I referenced yesterday.
On Tuesday, the SOS’ office issued another memo to county clerks and registrars – again, without our knowledge (we obtained a copy later) – advising them that “while ‘personal knowledge’ is not explicitly defined under NRS 293.535 or implementing regulations, the Secretary views the term to mean the same thing in both statutes.”
Meaning the definition as used in Section 547 challenges.
And as such, the memo concluded…
“Recently, individuals have submitted challenges based on their ‘personal knowledge’ obtained from their review of data from databases or compilations of information. It is the opinion of the Secretary of State that such challenges do not meet the requirement of ‘personal knowledge’ of facts supporting the challenge required by NRS 293.535 and 293.547. As the legislative history from 1991, noted above, confirms, review of databases and information compilations do not provide ‘firsthand knowledge through experience or observation’ of the challenged individual’s eligibility status. County clerks who receive these challenges should reject them and instruct challengers that personal knowledge gained through firsthand experience or observation of the facts relating to a voter’s eligibility is necessary to file a valid challenge under either statute. In the absence of such firsthand, personal knowledge showing a voter’s eligibility, these challenges should be rejected.”
When I obtained a copy of that memo, I was LIVID.
First, the “individual” who submitted the challenges in question was me. And on all of the challenges I submitted, I copied the author of the memo – Mark Wlaschin, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections.
So he’d known about the challenges all along. We’d been completely and totally transparent with the SOS office in what we were doing.
And yet, this new memo was never discussed with me in advance. In fact, I didn’t even get the courtesy of a heads up that it was being issued. I had to obtain a copy from one of the county clerks who received it.
This was neither transparent nor acting in good faith in a cooperative manner.
But worse…
If this directive from the Secretary of State’s office stands, that means there’s ABSOLTUELY NO WAY for the citizens of Nevada to take actions – outside of their own precinct – to help clean up the voter rolls.
And THAT’S why I went ballistic.
So here’s what happened next…
While in bumper-to-bumper traffic trying to get to the Dodgers/Orioles baseball game yesterday afternoon, Secretary Cisco Aguilar called me. Yes, someone had forwarded my email to him, and he wanted to discuss it.
I’ll say it was an open and productive call, but his explanation of content and intent of the memo didn’t make sense – but I was unable to re-read the memo while driving.
The conversation ended on a positive but inconclusive note.
When I got to the ballpark, I pulled up the memo on my phone and read it again to make sure I hadn’t misunderstood what was written.
But upon review, it was clear that what was written in the memo was NOT what the Secretary maintained during our call.
And I advised him of such in a follow-up text after finishing my Dodger Dog and a cold beer.
Based on our conversation, I’ve come to believe that the Secretary was unaware of exactly what was written and maybe was misled about its content by someone on his staff. At this point, I’m willing to give the Secretary the benefit of the doubt.
But this directive cannot be allowed to stand. You cannot, Humpty Dumpty-like, say that the words in statute as written mean whatever you say they mean. And if we’re forced to take legal action, we will.
Nevadans MUST be able to somehow challenge voters who clearly no longer live where they’re registered. The integrity and security of our elections depends on it.
And it’s critical that the SOS office communicate better with us on these questions and concerns in the future. Issuing private memos that directly affect our efforts without discussion, or even notification, is neither transparent nor cooperative.
I’ve not yet received a response from the Secretary to my text. When I do, I’ll let you know.
In the meantime, I’ve got to get ready for tonight’s ballgame. Series is tied 1-1. Go O’s!!!
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“The secretary of state’s job is to protect democracy by keeping our elections fair and transparent.” – Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar campaign commercial, 2022
“The more transparent and open we can be about our elections, I’m all for it.” – Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, Nevada Independent, 9/12/22
“You have to be transparent.” – Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, KOCO News5, 2/22/23
“Nevada runs some of the most secure, accessible and transparent elections in the country, and we're dedicated to ensuring voters are confident in that.” – Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, Press Release, 2/5/24
The Pigpen Project is a project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) grassroots organization founded in 1992. Donations are tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.