Blog

At a meeting held Monday night, June 24, at Boomtown Casino, the Washoe County Republican Party rejected my friend Cher Daniels’ nomination for central committee membership.

Daniels, who has served on the Washoe County Republican Party’s executive board for six years and led the Sparks Republican Women for six years, is currently a leader with the Nevada Federation of Republican Women. Despite her extensive involvement, they rejected her because she undermined the GOP’s call for unity.

“They claim that they want unity and they want more members,” Daniels stated, “but what they did last night was definitely not unity.”

The rejection stems from Daniels hosting a meet-and-greet campaign event for Washoe County Commissioner Clara Andriola, who was expelled from the county party in January for not consistently aligning with other Republicans in her votes.

Daniels expressed frustration at not being allowed to defend herself at the meeting.

“By not allowing me to speak and have free will to support who I want to support publicly or privately,” she said, “it’s a Communist kind of way of thinking, in my view.”

Andriola, who recently won her Republican primary race for Washoe County District 4, was equally perplexed by their actions towards Daniels.

“The Washoe GOP seems to be abandoning the big tent in favor of a tiny tent,” Andriola remarked. “I can’t explain it. But it seems to me any organization that depends heavily on volunteers would want to draw people in, not push people out.”

Requests for comment from the Washoe County Republican Party leadership remain unanswered.

The recount of ballots on Sunday, June 30, in Washoe County has ignited more controversy and raised serious questions about the transparency and integrity of the election process.

Initially, the county denied media access to the observation area during the recount for three candidates challenging the results from the June 11 primary. After about 45 minutes and mounting pressure, the press was allowed in.

Critics argue that the machine recount, ordered and certified by Clara Andriola, is a repeat of the same process with the same expected results. The core issue, they contend, is the county’s refusal to conduct a hand count recount, which had been fully funded by the Franklin Project, demanded by both the candidates and the organization, and Nevada law mandates.

The refusal has led to three lawsuits, three injunctions, and three temporary restraining orders by the candidates. Critics say the recount should not have happened until a judge could rule on the appropriate method. Instead, the county proceeded with the machine recount on a Sunday, bypassing the judicial process.

The Franklin Project and the candidates argue that a hand recount is essential for checks and balances, accountability, and transparency. They assert that simply running the ballots through the same machines will not uncover any discrepancies or errors that may have occurred.

Despite concerns, the county appears to have manipulated the narrative by controlling media coverage and dismissing the demands for a hand recount. Opponents claim the approach undermines public trust and disenfranchises voters from all political affiliations.

The recount results will be certified on Tuesday at 8 a.m. at the Board of County Commissioners meeting location. Opponents of the machine recount are urging the public to show up peacefully and voice their concerns. They argue that this issue affects all voters, regardless of party affiliation, and for greater transparency and adherence to the law.

The ongoing controversy has left many questioning what the county might be hiding and why it is resistant to providing the same level of scrutiny and verification that is standard in other areas of public life. Critics say that the actions are damaging the perception of free and fair elections and are calling for an end to such practices.

As the debate continues, the public is left to wonder why the county is so opposed to a hand recount and what it might mean for the future of election integrity in Washoe County.

A significant topic of discussion surrounding Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) revolves around her transition from bartender to congresswoman with a congressional salary of $155 thousand and a purported net worth of $26 million.

Critics use this to imply corruption. However, the deeper, more systemic issue is the very nature of how Congress compensates its members.

The Founding Fathers originally envisioned members of Congress being paid per diem rather than receiving an annual salary. The per diem system was to prevent legislators from becoming wealthy through their positions, ensuring that public service remained just that – service to the public.

The Founders aimed for a government run by “citizen legislators” who would serve temporarily and return to their regular professions, avoiding the rise of career politicians. The approach encouraged lawmakers to work efficiently and avoid prolonging sessions unnecessarily, as their compensation would be tied directly to their active workdays.

Additionally, the system accounted for the varying lengths of congressional sessions and the different distances members had to travel from their home states, and it allowed for adjustments based on economic conditions without needing a fixed salary. It aligned with the vision of a limited federal government, where serving in Congress was a temporary duty, not a long-term career.

Another layer of the problem is that members of Congress have the authority to determine their salaries. This situation, and their exemptions from laws that apply to the private sector and the executive branch, creates a fertile ground for systemic issues.

Congress is not required to keep detailed workplace records like private sector employers. There are fewer protections against retaliation for congressional employees when compared to those in the private sector.

Congress is almost entirely exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, which limits transparency. Congressional employees have fewer protections when they report misconduct, and Congress is not subject to the same scrutiny regarding workplace health and safety as other employers.

These exemptions and self-regulated salaries foster an environment where ethical lapses occur, leading to public distrust. Reverting to a per diem system and removing exemptions would be a move toward rebuilding public trust and ensuring that serving in Congress is genuinely about public service rather than personal gain.

A per diem system would discourage unnecessarily long legislative sessions, aligning with the idea that a government that legislates less interferes less with citizens’ lives. Ensuring lawmakers get paid for actual work done, rather than receiving a blanket salary, would encourage efficiency and accountability.

So, while focusing on individual figures like AOC might draw attention to potential corruption, the issue lies in congressional compensation and accountability created by our so-called public servants without the people’s realization.

A group of officials, including figures from Washoe County and the state of Nevada, have been hit with temporary restraining orders (TROs) halting the recount of votes cast in the June 11 Primary Election. The TRO filings are in response to planned recount activities set to begin before a court ruling on a preliminary injunction.

Individuals and Entities Named in TROs:

• Cari Ann Burgess, individually and as Registrar of Voters
• Mikki Huntsman, individually and as city clerk for the City of Reno City of Reno, Nevada
• Washoe County Registrar of Voters
• Eric Brown, individually and as Washoe County Manager
• Alexis Hill, individually and as Chairwoman of the Washoe County Board of Commissioners
• Washoe County
• Francisco Aguilar, individually and as Secretary of State
• Nevada Secretary of StateNevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, individually and as Nevada Attorney General
• DOES I through X and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, inclusive

The TROs aim to prevent the defendants from conducting the recount before the court can rule on the motion for a preliminary injunction.

According to the motion, the Washoe County Registrar of Voters plans to commence the recount on Sunday, June 30, despite the pending court ruling. Emails from the Washoe County District Attorney’s office confirmed these plans, with the recount set to begin early Sunday morning and finish over the weekend.

The plaintiff asserts that the recount should be conducted by hand, as allowed by law, not by machine. They argue that conducting a machine recount violates their right to inspect each ballot by hand.

The candidates cover the costs of recounts, which do not burden taxpayers, the state, or the county. Meanwhile, the plaintiff is questioning these official’s determination to proceed with a machine recount, suggesting that their actions may be an attempt to conceal issues with the election process.

The filing and subsequent actions have sparked significant controversy and distrust among the public. Critics argue that the official’s refusal to allow a hand recount undermines confidence in the electoral process.

They suggest that the media’s portrayal of the recount dispute as a partisan issue further erodes trust in election integrity. The court’s decision on the preliminary injunction will determine whether the recount proceeds as planned or halted for further review.

Verse 1:
Woke up this mornin’, sun barely in the sky,
Reached for my coffee, but it was cold and dry.
Life’s been feelin’ like that cup, oh so stale,
Tryin’ to find some warmth, but all I do is fail.

Chorus:
Life’s like a cup of cold instant coffee,
Bitter and cold, ain’t no sugar to see.
Tryin’ to heat it up, but it just won’t do,
Life’s like cold instant coffee, and I’m feelin’ blue.

Verse 2:
Days keep passin’, like a slow, sad song,
Nothin’ seems to change, everything feels wrong.
Lookin’ for some flavor, in this empty cup,
But all I taste is sorrow, can’t seem to fill it up.

Chorus:
Life’s like cold instant coffee,
Bitter and cold, ain’t no sugar to see.
Tryin’ to heat it up, but it just won’t do,
Life’s like cold instant coffee, and I’m feelin’ blue.

Bridge:
Maybe one day, I’ll find a way,
To brew a fresh pot, and chase these blues away.
But for now, I’m stuck in this cold, dark place,
Sippin’ on my sorrow, with a bitter taste.

Chorus:
Life’s like cold instant coffee,
Bitter and cold, ain’t no sugar to see.
Tryin’ to heat it up, but it just won’t do,
Life’s like cold instant coffee, and I’m feelin’ blue.

Outro:
So here’s to hopin’, for a brighter day,
When life’s like a fresh brew, and the blues fade away.
But until then, I’ll keep on singin’ this tune,
Life’s like cold instant coffee, under a pale, lonely moon.

The Washoe County Registrar of Voters (ROV) denied media access to the observation area on Sunday, June 30, during the recount of ballots for three candidates challenging the final votes on Tuesday, June 11, primary day.

KRNV reported in a thread posted to X, “Washoe County isn’t letting media into today’s election recount and their ballot counting YouTube stream is no longer active after election day. Results are expected by the end of the day.”

Initially, the ROV barred the press from the galley without explanation, and cameras in the counting room, accessible via YouTube only on Election Day, were already turned off. After about 45 minutes, the office reversed its decision, allowing media personnel into the observation area.

Within the hour, Ben Margiott, a journalist with the same television station, added to the thread, “Update: 45 minutes after we posted about how media were not allowed in to observe the recount, media can now have access to the observation booth.”

For over a year, the Washoe County ROV has faced intense scrutiny over its adherence to Nevada election laws. Allegations include making last-minute, unregulated changes and accepting assistance from Democratic operatives to address the office’s issues, even compensating these organizations.

Observers question whether the initial media restriction was an attempt to hide something illegal or simply a result of incompetence. They want to know what occurred during the 45-minute blackout.

The incident has further fueled concerns about transparency and the integrity of the election process in Washoe County.

Senator Jacky Rosen is demanding NBC News correct what she describes as a “demonstrably false headline” and “misleading reporting” related to their interview with Amy Brown, the wife of Republican challenger, Captain Sam Brown.

In the interview, Amy Brown revealed that she had an abortion, allegedly for the first time publicly. However, Jezebel, a feminist-centric website, which cannot recall the article when searched for, reported that Brown had previously spoken about her abortion on at least three occasions, always in the context of opposing reproductive freedom.

“This information contradicts the entire premise of Sam and Amy Brown’s political interview with NBC News,” her campaign said. “It is alarming that the Browns failed to disclose to NBC News that they had shared this story multiple times before and in an entirely different context of advocating for anti-abortion policies. It is also concerning that NBC News failed to properly vet these claims.”

In response to Rosen’s demand, Brown’s campaign renewed his pro-life stance, with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

“Like President Trump, I believe the issue is now correctly left at the state level and applaud his leadership,” said Brown.

Nevada’s abortion laws were codified in 1990 when voters passed a ballot initiative codifying abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, with extensions if the mother’s life is in danger.

As inflation continues to impact Nevadans, Democrats have positioned abortion as a central issue for the 2024 election. They are backing the Reproductive Freedom Amendment, a ballot initiative aimed at enshrining abortion rights into the state constitution. Senator Rosen has signed this petition and is advocating for the restoration of federal protections for abortion.

On the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a coalition of abortion rights groups announced a $100 million campaign to restore federal protections for the procedure. The coalition, including Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Reproductive Freedom for All, is forming Abortion Access Now, a national 10-year campaign to prepare policies for future Democratic control of Congress and to build public support.

Pro-life advocates in Nevada argue that the Reproductive Freedom Amendment could remove the six-month limitation on abortions, potentially allowing them up to the moment of birth if the health or mental health of the mother is at risk. Additionally, Nevada’s status as the number one state for human trafficking has raised concerns about the lack of parental consent for minors seeking abortions. And though Nevada has a parental notification statute, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Glick v. McKay, placed an injunction on it, which remains in place.

Her demand for a correction from NBC News shows her self-possessed grandiosity in panic mode.

He was the first appointment of the day. Jenna slipped her phone into her back pocket before checking her tablet to confirm his name as he sat down.

“Hello, Mr. Thompson?”

The man looked up from his seat, his face worn with grief. He was young, his eyes distant, carrying shopping bags and clutching a manila envelope.

Taking his silence as acknowledgment, Jenna continued softly, “Hello, sir. My name’s Jenna. We’ll be over here.”

Guiding Mr. Thompson to his seat opposite hers at the computer, Jenna noticed he stood beside it, hesitant.

“What can I do for you today?”

Mr. Thompson spoke with measured sadness, “Well,” he began, “My son, he passed away. Last Monday. I need to cancel his account. I have his death certificate.”

He held out the manila envelope.

Jenna’s heart sank. “I’m so sorry for your loss,” she said genuinely, hoping her words offered solace. “What was the phone number for the account?”

Mr. Thompson retrieved his phone and navigated to his son’s contact, his movements slow and deliberate. Reading aloud the number, he paused, reflecting on the reality he now faced.

Jenna entered it into her computer, pulling up Andrew Thompson’s account.

“I’ll just need to take a quick look at that death certificate, sir,” Jenna said, her voice gentle and careful.

Mr. Thompson wordlessly placed the death certificate on the table. Jenna verified the information, feeling the weight of the moment.

“Do you want to transfer these services to another location, sir?”

Mr. Thompson shook his head. “Just cancel,” he murmured, his thoughts already occupied with cleaning out his son’s apartment.

Jenna nodded solemnly and proceeded to cancel Andrew’s account.

“Okay, sir,” she said, indicating the items in his plastic bags. “You can go ahead and put that modem into the bin there next to you,” gesturing toward the Return Bin for old electronics.

Mr. Thompson placed Andrew’s old modem into the bin, his movements steady but tinged with sorrow.

“Will you take this too?” he asked, holding up an ethernet cable, his expression distant.

“Of course, sir. Go ahead and put that in the bin as well,” Jenna replied softly, acknowledging each item with reverence.

“What about this?” Mr. Thompson asked, showing her a cell phone with a cracked screen and a Pokeman case.

“Yes, sir. We’ll take that as well,” Jenna assured him.

Mr. Thompson then revealed something unexpected—a dried-up umbilical cord. Jenna hesitated, her heart aching for the man’s loss.

“Will you take this too?” Mr. Thompson asked quietly.

Jenna blinked back tears, her voice gentle. “Yes, sir,” she managed. “You can put that into the bin.”

Mr. Thompson complied silently, then retrieved a small, gray urn.

Removing the lid, he showed Jenna its contents—ashes, remnants of a life now gone.

“Will you take this too?” he asked, tears now evident on his exhausted face.

Jenna nodded, her voice barely a whisper. “Yes, sir. You can leave that here too.”

Mr. Thompson nodded slightly, his hands trembling as he poured the ashes into the bin, a cloud of gray dust rising silently.

Showing Jenna the empty urn, Mr. Thompson waited for her nod before placing it gently into the bin atop the ashes. He closed the lid and then stood before her.

“Will that be all, sir?” Jenna asked softly, her own emotions raw.

Mr. Thompson nodded silently, his grief palpable.

Jenna felt heavy, hollow, and deeply moved. “Thank you,” she murmured, her voice barely audible as Mr. Thompson turned and walked out the door.

Jenna watched Mr. Thompson walk away, his shoulders slightly slumped under the weight of sorrow. The door closed softly behind him, leaving a lingering sense of loss in the quiet office.

She took a moment to compose herself, wiping away a stray tear. She wanted to leave work, go home, and hug her daughter, but the day was still young.

(Verse 1)

Well, I woke up this mornin’,
With the weight of years upon my soul.
Time slipped through my fingers,
Like sand in an old dusty hourglass.

(Chorus)

Oh, time, oh time,
Why you gotta be so cruel?
You stole my youth, my dreams,
Left me with these blues.

(Verse 2)

I’ve seen lovers come and go,
Promises fade like smoke in the wind.
Memories haunt me like a ghost,
And regrets dance in the moonlight.

(Chorus)

Oh, time, oh time,
Why you gotta be so cruel?
You stole my youth, my dreams,
Left me with these blues.

(Bridge)

I tried to hold on tight,
But time slipped away like water through my hands.
Now I’m sittin’ here, singin’ my sorrow,
As the clock ticks on, relentless and unkind.

(Chorus)

Oh, time, oh time,
Why you gotta be so cruel?
You stole my youth, my dreams,
Left me with these blues.

(Outro)

So I’ll pour another glass of whiskey,
And let the notes of my guitar weep.
Maybe in the next life,
Time won’t be such a heartless thief.

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.