Case: Corona v. Cegavske

This is a case about voting by mail in Nevada. On April 16, 2020, a group of plaintiffs consisting of four registered Nevada voters and the Nevada State Democratic Party, Democratic National Committee, DCCC (national congressional committee of the Democratic Party), and Priorities USA (a voter-rights advocacy nonprofit) filed this lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court of Nevada (state trial court). The plaintiffs sued the state of Nevada, plus Clark County, Washoe County, and Elko County. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs challenged five of Nevada's new pandemic-influenced voting practices: Nevada's elimination of in-person voting locations, exclusion of inactive voters from the all-mail election, the time limits of Nevada Administrative Code § 293.217(1), and Nevada's Voter Assistance Ban and Ballot Rejection Rules. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, a preliminary and permanent injunction (they filed for the preliminary injunction on April 22, 2020), including requirements to increase the number of polling locations in proportion to county populations and to mail ballots to all registered voters ahead of the primaries. The plaintiffs also requested attorneys' fees and costs.

First, the Nevada Secretary of State announced that the 2020 primary would be all-mail, closing every polling location except for one in each county, regardless of the variable populations and geographic areas of each county. The plaintiffs alleged that this would lead to overcrowding and that voters (especially those who needed to register same-day in person, or those who didn't have access to mail) would be turned away and disenfranchised. The plaintiffs said that this physical polling location closure, as well as the other new disenfranchising practices, violated Nevada Constitution Article 2, §1, which guarantees Nevadans the right to have their vote counted, burdened the Nevada Constitution's Article 1 §8 and §9 rights to speech and to political expression, and burdened the federal constitutional right to voting and political expression under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (together, Nevada's Article 2, §1; 1 §8 and §9; and the federal First and Fourteenth Amendments constitute "the disenfranchisement claims"). 

Second, Nevada only mailed ballots to residents with an "active" voting status, even though voters could be registered while maintaining an "inactive" status. The plaintiffs argued that the Nevada Revised Statutes, including § 293.345(1), mandated that the state send ballots to all registered "active" and "inactive" voters. Thus, the plaintiffs said that the state's mailing exclusions violated the Nevada statutes. The plaintiffs also argued that the mailing exclusions would lead to disenfranchisement, causing them to bring all of the disenfranchisement claims against this mailing practice.

Third, Nevada's new Administrative Code § 293.217(1) said that a ballot received by election day would be counted. However, the plaintiffs argued, this Code conflicted with its governing statute, Nevada Revised Statute § 19 293.317. The statute said ballots should be counted if postmarked by election day. Thus, they argued that the code violated the statute. Fourth, the Voter Assistance Ban, codified as N.R.S. 293.325 and 293.333, mandated that every voter mail or hand deliver their ballots to the county clerk. If the voter needed assistance, only that voter's family member could assist in returning the ballot. The plaintiffs argued that the Voter Assistance Ban disenfranchised voters who required assistance (in a period when more people than ever might be worried about leaving the house) yet did not reside with family members, and thus alleged that it triggered all of the disenfranchisement claims. They also added that the Voter Assistance Ban violated the Nevada Voters' Bill of Rights and violated Article 1, § 10 of the Nevada Constitution regarding freedom of assembly. Fifth, the plaintiffs characterized the Ballot Rejection Rules as likely to lead to disenfranchisement, because they said election officials were poorly trained and could arbitrarily reject ballot signatures or reject them solely based on technical issues. After a signature rejection, voters only had seven days to address this issue, which plaintiffs said was insufficient. They brought each of the disenfranchisement claims against the Rejection Rules.

The state and various counties then negotiated with the plaintiffs. Clark County (where 81% of "inactive" voters live) agreed to mail ballots to all registered voters, to establish two more polling places, and to appoint field registers to address the Rejection Rules. The State agreed to invest in technology that would allow ballot signature mistakes to be cured on voters' phones and tablets, Washoe County agreed not to enforce Administrative Code § 293.217(1)'s voting timeline requirements. Given these negotiated pre-primary advancements, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction on May 5, 2020. 

On June 19, 2020, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, dropping seven charges but continuing to argue that the Voter Assistance Ban and Ballot Rejection Rules were impermissible for the same reasons as previously argued. For the six amended claims, they requested the same relief, including preliminary relief. By the time the plaintiffs filed the amended complaint, the Republican National Committee and Nevada Republican Party had intervened in support of the defendants. On August 2, 2020, the Nevada Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 4, and on the next day, the Governor signed it into law. Assembly Bill 4 amended the Voter Assistance ban to allow third parties to collect mail ballots and provided clearer standards and more meaningful cure opportunities in the Ballot Rejection Rules. As a result, the parties stipulated on August 4, 2020, that the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this entire action without prejudice. Assembly Bill 4 was then litigated in cases including Trump v. Cegavske, where challengers of the Bill lost.