Attorney General Ford’s Office Responds to Lawsuit Regarding Nevada’s Election

November 6, 2020

Carson City, NV – Today, the Nevada Attorney General’s Office filed a Response to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in a new lawsuit regarding Nevada's election. While the lawsuit was announced yesterday at 8:30am, Plaintiffs did not file the "emergency" lawsuit for nearly 12 hours. Plaintiffs requested a Temporary Restraining Order against the use of a ballot machine used in Clark County, among other items. While it repeats several of the same claims, this suit is a separate action previously denied by Nevada's First Judicial District Court Judge James Wilson.  

"While the Attorney General's Office normally does not comment on pending litigation, I feel compelled to dispel the misinformation being circulated to undermine the public's trust in our election,” said AG Ford. “To all Nevada voters: rest assured that the State of Nevada takes its responsibility to voters seriously, and is using every available resource to ensure the safety and security of this election. Courts have already found no evidence of fraud. Nevada's election officials will count all legal votes, as is the normal course of action in every election.”  

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs made a variety of unsubstantiated claims without a shred of evidence, most of which have already been brought before a court in this state, examined, and found meritless.

Specifically, the Response states these allegations are "absurd and must be rejected by this court."  

  • Plaintiff Stokke's allegation was previously independently investigated by the Secretary of State’s Office. Plaintiff Stokke refused to affirm that she had not submitted the mail ballot in writing to receive a provisional ballot and refused to challenge the ballot in question. Our Office filed the investigation report with the Court in this matter.   
  • Plaintiff Prudhome, who states he was acting simultaneously as an observer for the Trump Campaign and a credentialed member of the media, alleges he was not permitted to take photos of ballot counting. By law, only a registered Nevada voter may request photos or recordings of ballot counting. A court in this state has already determined that Clark County procedures allow for the lawful observation of the ballot counting.  
  • Plaintiffs provided no evidence of any voter fraud or inaccuracies with ballot counting machines. As addressed in the state court matter, the Agilis machine conducts an initial review of signed ballots, matching signatures approximately 30% of the time. The state district court, following a day-long evidentiary hearing, found “[n]o evidence was presented of any Agilis errors or inaccuracies.” Ex. B at 4:14. “No evidence was presented that there is any indication of any error in Clark County’s Agilis signature match rate.” Id. at 4:14-16. The remaining 70% proceed through a detailed human review process that complies with Nevada law and has not been challenged by Plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs continue to recycle these claims and fail to produce proof to the court.  

Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District Court, District Court of Nevada, will hear plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a telephonic hearing today, 11/6/2020, at 2:00 p.m. PST.