Dismissal of lawsuit by GOP requested

Trump campaign challenges new law

A federal lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign should be dismissed because the plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge Nevada’s recently passed elections law, state and national Democrats argue.

In a brief filed Thursday, the Democratic National Committee and the Nevada State Democratic Party argue that the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and the Nevada Republican Party aren’t allowed by law to bring the challenge to Assembly Bill 4, the elections law approved in a special session last month.

Republicans sued after Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the law, saying it unconstitutionally allows ballots cast after Election Day to be counted; that it improperly allows fewer polling places in rural counties than urban ones; that it allows for disparate treatment of ballots by different counties in Nevada and that it will allow for voter fraud. Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford has also asked for the litigation to be dismissed.

Democrats in their brief said the law simply makes it easier for everyone, including Republicans, to vote.

“Inexplicably and without merit, Plaintiffs now seek to undo reforms enacted by Assembly Bill 4,” the

Democrats write. “But their case is fatally flawed. They lack standing to bring their claims, having alleged no actual injury at the hands of Nevada’s elections officials that would be redressed by the relief they seek.” Specifically, Democrats argue:

■ AB4 doesn’t improperly extend Election Day because it requires ballots to be postmarked by Nov. 3, and presumes that those received within three days without a postmark or with an illegible postmark were mailed on Election Day.

“Section 20(2) creates a presumption that benefits all voters — Republicans. Democratic and otherwise — whose properly voted ballots, through no fault of their own, do not receive legible postmarks from the U.S. Postal Service,” the motion says. It calls allegations that “nefarious fraudsters” might cast ballots after

election day “unduly speculative and generalized,” and says that while Congress has set the day of the election, it hasn’t codified rules about ballot postmarks.

■ AB4 doesn’t treat counties differently because it requires more polling places in more populous counties and just one in rural counties. The law sets a minimum number of polling places based on population but doesn’t prohibit counties from adding more as local officials see fit.

“…Plaintiffs would still lack standing because they have not asked this Court to require rural counties to provide additional polling locations. Instead, they seek to strip away minimum polling location requirements for all of Nevada’s counties, including rural counties,” the motion said. “Not only would this relief fail to redress the alleged harm to rural county voters, it would inflict greater harm on all voters by removing any threshold requirement for in-person voting opportunities.”

■ AB4 doesn’t create disparate standards for how to count ballots in different counties. Democrats note in their brief that “Section 22 (if AB4) is simply a housekeeping provision that allows local election officials to develop standards for how to process ballots, not which ballots to count. Neither Plaintiffs nor their supporters have any unique interest in how local officials process ballots.”

Also, AB4 incorporates the rest of Nevada election laws, which do provide consistent guidance. “In short, Section 22 adopts Nevada’s other election laws by reference, and therefore provides sufficient standards and guidance for election officials — a conclusion that is apparent based on even a cursory examination of Assembly Bill 4 and the State’s election laws,” the motion said.

■ AB4 doesn’t make voter fraud inevitable. “This claim, a conclusory allegation of fraud unsupported by even a modicum of persuasive explanation, must be dismissed,” Democrats argue. Plaintiffs again lack standing to bring what is ultimately a speculative, generalized claim. And even if they had standing, Count V (of the GOP lawsuit) fails as a matter of law because it relies on a theory of vote dilution that has been roundly rejected by federal courts, including this one.”

The motion adds: “There is simply no authority for transmogrifying the vote dilution line of cases into a weapon that voters may use to enlist the federal judiciary to make it more difficult for millions of their fellow citizens to vote, based entirely on unfounded and speculative fears of voter fraud.”

A hearing in the case is still pending. The case is Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Barbara Cegavske.