State Supreme Court does not interject in Washoe County’s vote certification

State officials who sought clarity after Washoe County commissioners declined to certify a pair of local primary recounts did not get it from the Nevada Supreme Court.

The court on Monday declared the matter “moot,” weeks after the Northern Nevada county changed course and flipped the vote.

The offices of the secretary of state and attorney general had petitioned the court last month to “compel” officials to certify the elections, arguing that the initial 3-2 vote against doing so had the potential to “set a dangerous precedent” for future elections.

“Here, petitioner asserts that there is a high likelihood that respondents will refuse to certify election results in the future—in particular, during the 2024 general election,” justices wrote in the court order. “While we agree the issue is important and perhaps capable of repetition, petitioner’s argument that the issue is evading review falls flat.”

The court said that if that should occur again, the officials can seek relief on an “expedited basis.”

In a statement, Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar wrote: “Election workers in Nevada deserve support from the legal system, voters deserve confidence in the legitimacy of our elections, and elected officials must have accountability for their role in the process.”

Aguilar said he was “hopeful” the court would take action should the issue arise again, “but it’s disappointing that we have to wait for a true crisis to have this matter heard.”

Attorney General Aaron Ford wrote in a statement that he respected the court’s decision, “although I strongly believe that legal uncertainty in this matter contributes to unfounded distrust in our elections.”

Both offices said they would work together to protect Nevada’s votes.

Last month, Republican Commissioners Jeanne Herman, Mike Clark and Clara Andriola voted against certifying the recounts for a county commissioner race and a school board race.

Both recounts only changed the vote tally by one.

Andriola called on a new vote, which occurred in a meeting where she and Clark switched sides, swinging the vote to 4-1.

Clark, who continued to express mistrust of the tallies, said he had experienced “extreme duress under the threat of both my position and prosecution.”

“I’m not going to call it a vote because it isn’t a vote,” he said. “We’re compelled, and we have to.”

Andriola said she held talks with an election official and the county’s district attorney’s office who told her the elections were secured, and that she had a duty to certify the results.

The county commission meetings were attended by far-right advocates who spread conspiracy theories about voting machines and sowed distrust about election administrators.

“The question of mootness is one of justiciability,” justices wrote. “This court’s duty is not to render advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Contact Ricardo Torres-Cortez at rtorres@reviewjournal.com.