Lawsuit had described law as creating ‘impossible burdens’ on people who interact with election officials.
A legal challenge to a new Nevada law that criminalizes attempting to influence election officials has been turned away. U.S. District Judge Cristina Silva dismissed the lawsuit, which had been filed against Nevada Senate Bill 406.
In an amendment to existing law, the bill states that it’s illegal for people to use or threaten to use intimidation or undue influence “with the intent to interfere with the performance of any elections official” or “retaliate against any elections official.”
A group of Nevada residents sued over the bill, which was signed into law in 2023 by Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican. The residents argued that because the law does not define who an election official is, the description can include election observers, or members of the public who are allowed by law to observe voting at polling places.
Observers “may potentially not only be a victim of SB 406 but also be subject to a prosecution under SB 406, for a Class E felony, if an election observer vocally objects to any conduct which may be subjectively viewed as intimidation or undue influence, by a purported victim under SB 406,” the lawsuit stated. It also noted that neither “intimidation” nor “undue influence” are defined, raising concerns about how the law will be applied.
“If a ‘rover’ confronts a ballot inspector over an inspector’s perceived wrongful conduct, with the intent to have that wrongful conduct corrected, and the inspector feels intimidated, under SB 406 that subjects the rover to criminal liability,” the residents said. “Moreover, if a ballot inspector confronts another ballot inspector outside the central ballot processing area/election office/warehouse, about perceived wrongful conduct, with an intent to correct it, that may subject a ballot inspector to criminal liability for intimidation or undue influence.”
Sigal Chattah, a Republican National Committee committeewoman, represents the plaintiffs.
Nevada officials defended the law and urged the court to dismiss the case. They said that the residents failed to show they had standing, or the right to challenge the law, and did not outline legitimate relief for the court to grant.
