New Clark County election plan decision shrouded in mystery

Clark County will offer more voting options in the June 9 primary election as part of sweeping changes revealed Tuesday, but how and when those decisions were made remained a mystery.

Most members of the Clark County Commission and several county staff members did not respond Wednesday to requests for comment on the changes. Two commissioners applauded the new measures but said they either could not share or did not know how the changes were made.

Meanwhile, Republicans feel the changes were the result of either pressure from or a deal with the Democrats and are threatening a new lawsuit of their own to block them.

This week’s news came after Clark County Counsel Mary-Anne Miller submitted a court document Monday in which she said that the registrar of voters, Joseph Gloria, “at the direction of local county officials” was setting up two additional in-person voting sites in the county.

The filing said the additional sites “were thought not to be needed because of the ease and safety of voting by mail and because of the extremely low turnout for primary elections in Clark County in the recent past.”

The county will now offer three in-person voting sites, mail ballots to every registered voter instead of just active voters and allow a bipartisan group of deputized “field registrars” to collect sealed ballots from voters as part of its announced changes.

According to the court filing, the changes will cost the county at least $323,000.

The new policies come as the state and county election officials face a lawsuit from the Nevada State Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee and other related groups. Many of the Democrats’ demands were met by Clark County, but the groups are seeking statewide changes for both the primary and general election.

The state Democrats declared a victory Tuesday, saying the changes in Clark County will expand voter access. The election officials have maintained they are not trying to curb access but rather lower risk of COVID-19 exposure for voters and staff.

Commissioners in favor of changes

Commissioner Tick Segerblom said he could not speak for the commission as a whole or about how the decision to amend the county’s election plan was reached, but he expressed his support for the changes.

“Having only one voting center was unacceptable,” he said. “This is a huge county, and we need to do anything we can do to make it easier for people to vote.”

Segerblom said he also agreed with mailing ballots to all registered voters, not just active ones.

“It’s not right that a government official would decide to not send ballots to some people because it was decided those people aren’t likely to vote,” he said.

Voting is a fundamental right, he added, and the increased costs are worth protecting that right.

Segerblom said the county has acquired about $295 million in federal stimulus money related to the COVID-19 pandemic, with more federal money tied to elections on the way.

“Either way, I don’t think Nevadans are going to have to sacrifice because of (the county’s election changes),” he said.

Commissioner Lawrence Weekly said he expressed his concerns with the county’s previous election plan to County Manager Yolanda King after learning of the specifics through news reports. He was not sure how the changes were eventually made.

He said Gloria had expressed staffing and other concerns to the commission during previous meetings, but Weekly did not know the county’s plan included only one in-person voting center, which he would have opposed.

Weekly is also in favor of the new requirements, noting that elderly or disabled voters might not be able to even walk to their mailboxes to submit their ballots. He said the new options allow those concerned about the coronavirus to vote safely from home, while increasing access for others.

He agreed with Segerblom’s response when asked about the increased financial cost.

“There’s no cost too much when it comes to doing the right thing for the American people,” he said. “We have to utilize the resources we have to not inconvenience folks as much as we can.”

Multiple attempts to reach Commissioners Michael Naft, Larry Brown, Marilyn Kirkpatrick, Jim Gibson and Justin Jones were not successful, as were attempts to reach Miller, the county counsel, and county spokesmen Erik Pappa and Dan Kulin.

Republicans respond

Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Richard Walters said that the commission reached a “back alley deal” with the Democratic groups pushing the lawsuit. The RNC has intervened in the lawsuit to oppose the Democrats.

“If Gloria doesn’t want to do it and says it’s a waste of taxpayer money, then why are you doing it?” Walters said. “This only benefits the Democrats. … it’s a swipe at election integrity.”

Republicans believe allowing someone to collect sealed ballots on behalf of voters, which is technically illegal in Nevada, leads to election fraud, though that claim remains unfounded.

Democrats have maintained in this lawsuit and others that this fear is not based on evidence. The state party noted Wednesday that a Nevada federal court threw out a lawsuit last week filed by a conservative group making those same allegations.

Walters said the RNC is contemplating legal action against Clark County. He maintained that the stimulus money the county may use to pay for the changes belongs to the taxpayers.

“We will absolutely sue them into oblivion if we have to,” Walters said.

Any litigation from the RNC could wrap the county in a sort of legal spiderweb. Republican lawyers would be working to oppose the Democrats’ lawsuit against Gloria — and by extension, the county — with one hand while suing the county’s governing body with the other.

Former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt echoed the allegations of a shady deal on Wednesday in a tweet amplified by Donald Trump Jr. Laxalt is also a statewide chair of President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign.

In an interview, Laxalt further accused the county commission of very likely violating the state’s Open Meeting Law. Even if the commission met with its attorneys privately to discuss the lawsuit, which is allowed under the law, Laxalt said the commission would still need to post notice of such a meeting and share publicly any policy changes that resulted from it.

“Preventing something like this from happening is why these public meeting laws exist,” he said.

Contact Rory Appleton at rappleton@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0276. Follow @RoryDoesPhonics on Twitter.