Blog

After years of expanding voter access, Nevada may soon shift toward imposing new restrictions in its election process.

In the upcoming general election, voters will weigh in on Question 7, a proposal that would amend the state’s constitution to require voters to present government-issued photo identification before voting in person. Additionally, mail-in voters must provide the last four digits of their Nevada driver’s license number, Social Security number, or a voter ID number issued by their county clerk.

Because Question 7 originated from a signature petition, it will require approval from voters twice—first in this election and again in 2026, for final confirmation.

Supporters of the measure argue that it is a necessary reform to protect the integrity of the state’s elections and restore public trust in the democratic process. David Gibbs, chair of Repair the Vote Nevada, which sponsored the ballot initiative, calls it “common sense election reform.” He added, “You need an ID to do almost anything… People have them.”

Opponents, however, criticize the measure as a “solution in search of a problem,” pointing to studies that show minimal voter impersonation in the U.S. They argue the new rules could disenfranchise voters who lack proper identification and complicate the mail-in voting process.

“Voting is a right we all have to choose our leaders,” reads the official opposition argument. “We shouldn’t stop anyone who can vote from voting.”

Under Question 7, eight government-issued IDs would be accepted, including driver’s licenses, passports, and tribal photo IDs. Voters over 70 would be exempt from expiration date restrictions on their identification. However, the proposal does not specify how to handle voters without a proper ID.

Nevada’s debate on voter ID laws reflects a broader national trend. Since 2020, several states, including Nebraska and Missouri, have adopted voter ID requirements, while others, like Arizona, have rejected similar measures. Currently, 36 states have laws requiring or requesting identification at the polls, while Nevada is among 14 that do not.

The financial backing behind Question 7 has drawn attention. Repair the Vote Nevada raised over $307,000 from donors, including a nonprofit in Virginia and Nevada-based businesses. The Nevada Voter ID Coalition, which supports the proposal, received $1.4 million from the Las Vegas Sands Corp through a political action committee aligned with Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Mississippi’s current mail-in ballot law, which allows counting ballots postmarked by Election Day received within five days after the polls have closed.

The decision, affecting Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, aligns with the Republican argument that federal election laws mandate ballot receipt by Election Day. The court’s decision is currently on hold as it heads back to a lower court, with further challenges likely leading to a U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

Republican representatives argue that the integrity of Election Day is compromised by extended counting periods, which disproportionately favor Democrats, citing that more Democrats vote by mail. The lawsuit is one of many initiated by the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign to bar late-arriving ballots nationwide.

Opponents, including the League of Women Voters, argue that such restrictions disenfranchise military personnel, disabled voters, and others who rely on mail-in options. Legal experts such as Joyce Vance emphasize that cutting off counting on Election Day would ignore the modern demands of early and absentee voting.

With Nevada among the states offering grace periods, the implications of this case could impact its mail-in ballot policies. Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar has not commented, as Nevada’s laws allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive by 5 p.m. on the fourth day after.

Nevadans are fucked now that the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that mail-in ballots without a discernible postmark can be counted by clerks and registrar of voters three days after Election Day.

The interpretation stems from a statute enacted during the pandemic by the Democratic majority, allowing ballots to be received up to the fourth day after Election Day but requiring a postmark on or before Election Day. However, even if a postmark can’t be verified, ballots arriving within the first three days post-election will be deemed timely and counted.

The court’s ruling hinged on an interpretation of the statute that both plaintiffs and some legal experts have found controversial. In its decision, the court dismissed the case due to the plaintiffs’ lack of “standing,” a procedural hurdle that has posed a significant barrier to election-related lawsuits in Nevada.

An anonymous election lawyer remarked, “The standing requirement has prevented most Nevada election laws from being challenged on their merits, giving state judges broad discretion that often aligns with legislative intent.”

Beyond standing, the court interpreted the statute’s ambiguous language to include ballots with missing postmarks. The ruling refers to 2021 legislative discussions where Democratic Assembly leader Jason Frierson clarified that ballots arriving without postmarks or with unreadable marks were to be counted if received in the designated period.

In his dissent, Justice Douglas Herndon argued that the statute requires a postmark, stating, “A postmark cannot be indeterminable unless there is a postmark to begin with.”

Herndon emphasized that any deviation from requiring a postmark dilutes the statute’s text, contradicting principles of statutory construction. Justice Kristina Pickering, concurring in part, argued that the statute’s plain text requires a postmark for any late-arriving ballot but ultimately concurred with the court’s decision due to proximity to Election Day.

Vet Voice Foundation, a defendant in the case, welcomed the decision.

CEO Janessa Goldbeck stated, “Today’s decision is a resounding victory for troops and veterans voting by mail, honoring their service by upholding accessible election standards.”

It is unclear whether the plaintiffs will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One crisp autumn day, Jack decided to tidy the home by dusting his wife’s fall decorations, including a pumpkin, affectionately dubbed “The Head” from Sleepy Hollow. He accidentally knocked it off the side table, causing it to crash to the floor and shatter on one side.

Determined to fix his mistake, he grabbed the Crazy Glue and got to work. To his horror, the pumpkin began to melt.

Jack watched in shock as the beloved decoration transformed into a gooey, sticky mess. The glue reacted to the acetate, creating a scene straight out of “The Wizard of Oz” meets “The Thing.”

Trying to salvage the situation, Jack noticed his hands had become a casualty. The glue had adhered to his skin, creating a layer that seemed impossible to remove.

His hands felt like they were morphing into something entirely non-human. Panic set in as he realized his skin was peeling, and he feared the worst– had he started a monstrous transformation?

With his wife taking the pumpkin massacre in stride, Jack spent the next few hours battling the sticky situation. Armed with patience and a bit of fortune, he freed his hands from the adhesive disaster.

Determined to salvage the pumpkin fiasco, a friend suggested turning it into a display with gnomes, so he went to the store and bought a family of them. Returning home, he imagined the scene: a happy, cozy family bringing life to the now mangled pumpkin.

But as he opened his front door, Jack froze, finding the pumpkin occupied. His old, small green army soldiers—relics from his childhood—had taken over, transforming the pumpkin into a military outpost.

The gnome family–newly purchased and bewildered–became relegated to the humble paper bag they came with.  Homeless and out of place, their serene lives turned topsy-turvy by a militant green army.

His wife walked in on the scene, shaking her head, “Only you could turn a glue disaster into a miniature commentary on society.”

A study by NumbersUSA has confirmed that federal immigration policies, both legal and illegal, are the leading drivers of urban sprawl in the U.S., with Nevada ranking at the forefront of this issue.

The study, which analyzed federal data from 1982 to 2017, found Nevada to be the fastest-growing state in terms of population and sprawl, leading to significant losses of natural habitat and farmland, all while being the driest state in the nation. During the 35-year study period, Nevada experienced a 153 percent rate of sprawl, expanding by nearly 500 square miles or more than double the U.S. average of 61 percent.

The state population growth during this time was 237 percent, nearly twice as fast as the next highest state and six times the national growth rate of 40 percent. The NumbersUSA report attributes 39 percent of the population growth to post-1982 immigration policies.

Over 800,000 residents in 2017 were either foreign-born or the descendants of those who immigrated after 1982. According to the study, this population would not have been in Nevada but for federal immigration policies, which accounted for nearly 90 percent of national population growth.

Meanwhile, urban sprawl in Nevada has consumed farmland and wildlife habitats, raising concerns among residents. A NumbersUSA poll revealed that Nevadans strongly oppose the transformation of natural habitats for urban development. There is also opposition to local efforts by cities like Reno to focus on vertical development rather than expanding outward, a strategy designed to accommodate the growing demand for housing.

The study also suggests that the ongoing housing crisis is made worse by rapid population growth driven by immigration. According to the report, Nevadans favor reducing or limiting immigration to reduce the strain on housing, land, and resources.

The study noted that state and local governments have increased spending on education, healthcare, and housing more than they have gained in revenue due to immigration. According to reports by FAIR US, illegal immigration alone cost Nevada taxpayers $2 billion in 2023, or nearly $2,000 per household annually.

Leon Kolankiewicz, a director at NumbersUSA and the lead author of several studies on urban sprawl, commented on the unsustainable nature of exponential population growth,

“Our biggest misunderstanding is not being able to understand exponential growth because it can come on so suddenly… anything that grows exponentially is unsustainable in nature.”

As Nevada continues to face challenges related to population growth, resource sustainability, and urban development, the NumbersUSA report suggests a reevaluation of federal immigration policies as a solution to protecting natural and economic resources.

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Nevada GOP, and Nevada voter Scott Johnston, who alleged that voter rolls in the state were inaccurate and violated federal law. The plaintiffs claimed that several counties had more registered voters than eligible adult citizens, heightening the risk of voter fraud ahead of the November election.

In a ruling issued on Friday, October 18, U.S. District Judge Cristina Silva sided with Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and county election officials, dismissing the case due to lack of standing. Silva found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a concrete injury under Article III of the Constitution, which requires an actual or imminent injury for federal courts to intervene.

“To have standing under Article III, a plaintiff must allege an injury in fact that is ‘concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,’” Silva wrote. She concluded that the plaintiffs’ concerns about vote dilution were “generalized and speculative.”

The lawsuit, filed in March 2024 and amended in July, argued that Nevada had violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by failing to maintain accurate voter rolls. It highlighted voter registration rates in counties like Douglas (106 percent) and Storey (115 percent) that allegedly exceeded the number of eligible adults, fueling concerns about potential voter fraud under Nevada’s universal mail-in voting system.

The plaintiffs sought a court order requiring stricter voter roll maintenance before the 2024 election. However, the state defended its practices, describing Nevada as a leader in list maintenance, and argued that the lawsuit used misleading data.

Silva’s ruling dismissed the claims with prejudice for Scott Johnston, meaning he cannot refile. However, the RNC and Nevada GOP still have the option to file an amended complaint by Friday, November 1, to address legal standing issues.

A new report from the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security has identified Nevada among 29 states where incidents involving “foreign jihadist networks and homegrown violent extremists” pose a persistent terror threat to America.

The report highlights over 50 cases between April 2021 and September 2024, detailing various attempts to provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations, including ISIS, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. These incidents involved military-type training, fraud, and other actions supporting these terrorist groups.

The committee findings come amid a backdrop of heightened concerns following major terrorist attacks, such as the August 2021 ISIS-K attack in Afghanistan, which claimed the lives of 13 U.S. service members, and the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack against Israel, which killed over 1,200 people and resulted in 200 hostages taken. These events, the report states, have contributed to a worsening terror threat landscape in the United States.

Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., linked the rising threats to what he described as policy failures by the Biden administration, citing the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and vulnerabilities along U.S. borders. Green emphasized that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) primary mission is to protect Americans from such threats, but he warned that the system is “blinking red yet again.”

According to the report, examples of jihadist-related activity in the U.S. include individuals from various states, including Nevada. Some cases involve foreign nationals and American citizens, nearly all Muslim men, convicted of providing material support to terrorist organizations or engaging in terrorist plots.

The cases cited range from a Turkish man in Kentucky receiving military training from ISIS to a Moroccan man in Minnesota who fought alongside ISIS in Syria. Several convicted individuals received prison sentences, while others were involved in plots thwarted by federal authorities.

The report’s release coincides with the 23rd anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people and led to the creation of DHS. Despite the department’s formation to consolidate federal efforts against terrorism, the committee expressed concerns over ongoing security lapses. A recent report by the DHS Office of Inspector General pointed to significant deficiencies within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), noting that current practices do not fully ensure the prevention of high-risk individuals without identification from entering the country.

The committee also raised concerns about the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) ability to adequately vet noncitizens who threaten public safety, highlighting potential risks for domestic air travel.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar is misusing taxpayer dollars to fund a targeted voter outreach campaign focused on registered voters aged 18 to 24. The segment has no prior voting history for the most part– but with their cell phone numbers on their voter registration forms, they are getting the majority of Get Out the Vote (GOTV) text messages, which disproportionately benefits Democrats.

A national poll by the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School, conducted in September, found Vice President Kamala Harris leading former President Donald Trump 64 percent to 32 percent among Gen-Z likely voters. The age group, strongly favoring Democratic candidates, is critical in giving Harris and other Democratic contenders a significant edge in the upcoming elections.

With 47,070 registered voters in Nevada matching the outreach criteria, questions have arisen about whether taxpayer money should go toward mobilizing a demographic that leans toward one party. Given Nevada’s historically tight races—Governor Joe Lombardo won by just 15,386 votes in 2022, and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto defeated Adam Laxalt by 7,928.

Aguilar’s office has taken a partisan stance under the guise of civic participation. Using state taxpayer-funded resources for partisan initiatives raises red flags. Nevada’s election funds should be strictly allocated to ensuring secure and transparent elections, not influencing turnout in favor of one political party.

Phillips 66 will close its Los Angeles-area refinery by late 2025, following the latest wave of regulations pushed by California Governor Gavin Newsom. The refinery shutdown will impact over 900 employees and contractors but also increase fuel prices for consumers in neighboring states like Nevada, where residents already feel the ripple effects of California’s energy policies.

Phillips 66 issued a statement confirming that it would work with the state to ensure fuel markets remain supplied, as the closure of a facility responsible for more than eight percent of California’s refining capacity will disrupt fuel availability.

The closure is part of a broader trend of oil companies exiting California as the state’s aggressive environmental legislation squeezes the industry. The latest blow to California’s fuel infrastructure follows Chevron’s August announcement of its corporate relocation from the Bay Area to Houston, Texas, after more than 140 years in the state.

Critics, such as Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, have slammed Newsom’s policies, which they say prioritize political posturing over economic stability.

“Thanks to Gavin Newsom’s showboating and incompetence, hundreds of workers will lose their jobs while California drivers will face a massive price hike,” Gallagher said.

He warned that the ripple effects would extend beyond California, with Nevada and other neighboring states seeing a hike in gas prices due to reduced fuel supply from the West Coast. Nevada, which relies on California refineries for a portion of its fuel supply, will see an immediate increase in gas prices from the Phillips 66 closure.

Fuel experts anticipate that Newsom’s new regulations and a reduced refining capacity could drive prices up by 30 to 50 cents per gallon in Nevada, as the state already grapples with high fuel costs, driven by California’s policies and influence on regional fuel markets.

Newsom has consistently argued that California’s high gas prices are not because of his policies but of price gouging by the oil industry. In May, he signed a gas price gouging law curbing what he described as unfair pricing practices by refineries. Nonetheless, many industry experts and lawmakers see the departure of companies like Phillips 66 and Chevron as a direct consequence of California’s increasingly stringent regulatory environment.

Phillips 66 has already started preparing for the refinery closure, engaging developers to explore future uses for its 650-acre properties in Wilmington and Carson, Calif.

The California Fuels and Convenience Alliance (CFCA), representing fuel marketers and gas station owners, expressed disappointment over the Phillips 66 decision, pointing to the inevitable impact on workers and consumers.

“Every Californian will end up paying higher prices in this government-created energy crisis,” said Alessandra Magnasco, CFCA’s Governmental Affairs Director. “Unfortunately, Nevada and other nearby states will feel the impact as well.”

While Newsom continues to push for California’s transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, the economic fallout of these policies will hit the fuel market hard. With fewer refineries operating under California’s tight regulations, the result will be higher prices at the pump—both in California and beyond—leaving consumers and businesses struggling to cope with the cost of clean energy ambitions.

Donald Trump’s latest rally at the Thomas and Mack Center at UNLV Thursday night, October 24, showcased the former president’s growing momentum in Nevada, a state that has long been elusive for Republican candidates.

From Polynesian music to a rock set by Common Kings and speeches from high-profile Trump allies like Tulsi Gabbard and Sen. Marco Rubio, the event drew thousands. With chants of “We love you,” Trump addressed a crowd seemingly optimistic about a Nevada victory.

The Nevada rally is emblematic of broader shifts as Republicans grow more hopeful about flipping Nevada’s six electoral votes, that could be critical in a close Electoral College race. Key factors include a surge in early Republican voting, frustrations with the current Democratic administration, and a notable shift in Latino support—Trump’s appeal among Latino voters, who make up roughly 20 percent of Nevada’s electorate, has risen significantly.

A strong turnout among Republicans during the initial phase of early voting suggests their strategic advantage. Tyler Bowyer of Turning Point Action, one of the event hosts, told the crowd, “We’re winning Nevada,” to cheers and applause, echoing the Republican Party’s renewed confidence in the state.

Despite Republicans’ rising enthusiasm, Nevada Democrats are banking on the turnout machine initially built by the late Sen. Harry Reid, which has reliably driven support for Democratic candidates statewide. Key Nevada groups, including unionized hospitality workers and Latino communities, remain mobilized to support Kamala Harris. However, Republicans claim to be making inroads within these crucial Democratic blocs, particularly among Latino hospitality workers, who are expressing dissatisfaction with current economic challenges.

Meanwhile, Democrats are working to offset early GOP enthusiasm with a focused push on voter turnout, including a mobile billboard campaign highlighting a controversial statement attributed to Trump. The DNC’s effort is aimed at spotlighting Trump’s controversial remarks and warning of “the danger to democracy” his leadership poses, according to DNC Chair Jaime Harrison.

Trump’s campaign, however, has denied the accusations, calling the claims part of a “debunked story” by his former chief of staff, Gen. John Kelly.