Local NewsPoliticsElections Local

Actions

Judge rejects lawsuit in Nevada over voter fraud, verified signature issues

Telephonic hearing held involving Clark County voter Jill Stokke
COURTROOM GAVEL
Posted at 11:36 AM, Nov 06, 2020
and last updated 2020-11-06 22:00:10-05

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — A telephonic hearing took place on Friday in relation to a lawsuit that was filed against Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and Clark County Registrar of Voters Joe Gloria.

The lawsuit alleged the county’s signature verification system uses lower quality images than its software requires and a federal judge denied the motion from the Nevada Republicans that has also claimed voter fraud in the state.

Judge Andrew Gordon denied the motion to stop the use of Clark County’s signature verification machine or to change the county's vote-counting observation rules.

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs were listed as registered voter Jill Stokke; Chris Prudhome, a “credentialed member” of the media (who described himself as a senior advisor to the state Republican Party) who attempted to observe ballot counting in Clark County; and campaigns for Republican candidates Jim Marchant and Dan Rodimer, who are running for congressional seats.

PREVIOUS STORY: Clark County provides update on vote count, addresses Trump campaign lawsuit

The lawsuit filed was to stop Clark County from using its signature verification machines known as the Agilis system.

The lawsuit also claimed that Stokke went to vote in person and was told her ballot had already been received by the election department. However, Stokke claimed she has not voted.

In her declaration, Stokke claimed that Gloria pressured her to “attest to a lie."

Registrar of Voters Joe Gloria said during a press conference on Thursday that he met with her and the elections department believes that it is her signature on the mailed-in ballot. He also said they gave her the opportunity to provide a statement but she refused to do so.

Judge Gordon ruled Stokke could have taken the offer to fill out a provisional ballot and that there was no evidence Agilis had anything to do with her ballot.

Prudhome, who describes himself as a frequent Fox News guest commentator on Twitter, says that he was denied access to view ballot counting in Clark County on Wednesday.

Friday, the Nevada Attorney General’s Office filed a Response to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in a new lawsuit regarding Nevada's election. Read the response below.

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.