Ethical Concerns Raised Over Washoe Elections Certification

Washoe County Commissioners Alexis Hill and Clara Andriola have certified their election results, raising ethical and legal questions.

The issue is whether a commissioner running for re-election should recuse themselves from certifying election results when serving as the tie-breaking vote. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) provide the legal framework for this situation.

NRS 281A.400 addresses standards for ethical conduct by public officers and employees, prohibiting conflicts of interest. NRS 281A.420 requires public officers to disclose any conflicts of interest and abstain from voting on matters where they have a significant financial interest. Additionally, NRS 293.387 outlines the procedures for canvassing the vote and certifying election results. The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) contains regulations interpreting these ethical standards.

Under NRS 281A.420, a public officer must disclose any conflict of interest and abstain from voting when their interests could materially affect their decision-making. A commissioner running for re-election and involved in certifying their election results has a direct personal and monetary interest in the outcome, creating a conflict of interest.

To maintain the integrity and impartiality of the election, the commissioners should recuse themselves from the certification process. This ethical obligation supports public trust and ensures the certification process is free from undue influence or the appearance of impropriety.

The fact that Andriola acted as the tie-breaking vote to certify the election results exacerbates the ethical concerns, undermining public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the electoral process. An independent body or the remaining commissioners without conflicts should handle these decisions.

Despite these concerns, the commissioners did not recuse themselves from certifying the election results, violating NRS 281A.420. Recusal would have been the appropriate action to uphold ethical standards and ensure public trust in the election process.

In cases of conflict, involving an independent entity or following alternative procedural mechanisms is necessary to ensure impartial certification of election results.

District Attorney Mary Kandaras downplayed the significance of the canvass of the vote, but NRS 293.387 clearly outlines the procedures for canvassing returns and certifying the abstract of votes.

The statute ensures the canvassing process accurately reflects the votes cast and mandates actions to correct clerical errors. If a commissioner certifies a canvass with significant errors, it could lead to legal challenges from candidates or voters, court reviews, and possible overturning of the certification.

Ethical violations could lead to investigations by the Nevada Commission on Ethics, resulting in sanctions, fines, or disciplinary actions. Errors in certification can undermine public trust in the electoral process, leading to questions about the legitimacy of the election results.

The county may need to correct certification errors through administrative procedures, potentially reconvening the board to address discrepancies and issue a corrected certification. If negligence or deliberate misconduct is suspected or found, the commissioner may be subject to removal from office under NRS 283.440.