(Chuck Muth) – A few weeks ago, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed a lawsuit in Washoe County after investigating and documenting a series of voter registrations where the voter was registered at a commercial address, PO box, etc.
This week, PILF filed a similar complaint in Clark County…
“Petitioners brought to Respondent’s attention evidence concerning whether residential addresses listed on the statewide voter registration list are accurate as there is no indication that individuals reside at the specific locations identified. Petitioners sought Respondent’s compliance with state law regarding the accuracy of the statewide voter list through investigations of specific addresses for accuracy. Respondent has not acted. Petitioners have no other remedy at law and herein seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Respondent to investigate possible commercial addresses.”
The New York Post has a story on it today (click here).
The PILF lawsuits are separate from the Pigpen Project. But their legal actions are reasonable and responsible – unlike the lawsuits brought by the Nevada Republican Party following the 2020 general election. PILF does its homework.
I’ll keep you posted as things develop on this.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking and things are moving fast and furious over efforts to clean up the voter rolls in Nevada before the November general election.
Time is of the essence since, by law, any updates to voter records need to be made before the 90-day “blackout” period, which begins the first week in August.
The Pigpen Project has already submitted a little over a thousand names to various Nevada county clerks/registrars of individuals who are listed as “active” voters in Nevada who we’ve identified as having submitted a change of address to the post office declaring they’ve moved permanently to another state, have registered to vote in their new state and have, in fact, voted in their new state.
Last week we submitted hundreds more “active” voters who have submitted a change of address and have registered to vote in their new state but do not appear to have voted yet in their new state.
Still, these voters should be removed from the Nevada voter rolls or, at least, be moved from “active” to “inactive” status – which would mean they wouldn’t be automatically mailed a ballot for the November election. The breakdown…
- Clark: 362
- Washoe: 283
- Lyon: 69
- Douglas: 17
- Storey: 10
- Elko: 9
- Churchill: 9
- Nye: 8
- White Pine: 1
It should be noted that we only have official voter registration data from just over a dozen states. As we gain access to more and more state registration databases, we’ll be able to identify and report a far greater number of “ghost voters” who no longer live in Nevada but are still registered to vote here.
The wording in the various laws is still rather fuzzy, but we believe Nevada election officials can remove these moved voters permanently – and do so immediately – rather than simply move them from “active” to “inactive” status.
Today we’re submitting almost 30,000 additional names of voters currently on the Nevada voter rolls who, according to official post office data, no longer live in Nevada and have permanently moved to another state.
The county-by-county breakdown is as follows…
- Clark: 18,728
- Washoe: 6,481
- Lyon: 1,392
- Douglas: 843
- Carson City: 720
- Elko: 400
- Nye: 337
- Churchill: 305
- Humboldt: 152
- Storey : 88
- Pershing: 34
- Lander: 19
- White Pine: 15
- Mineral: 11
- Eureka: 5
- Esmeralda: 3
- Lincoln: 3
If they want to clean their voter files before the “blackout” period deadline, these counties need to send out confirmation postcards within the next week or so.
The responses we’ve received from the various county election officials so far have been a mixed bag.
Most have yet to respond at all, even to confirm receipt of our data, while a handful acknowledged receipt of the data and expressed gratitude.
One rural county clerk wrote, “Received and will review our rolls. Your hard work and dedication to this project is appreciated.”
“Thanks for the info and assistance,” wrote another. “Improved voter roll maintenance and clean-up is one of my prime objectives. We will, indeed, follow-up on these and do all we can to verify domicile changes, re-registration and appropriate voter record update.”
Another, however, got defensive and indicated she was not prepared to act on our request. “We follow the law and do list maintenance on a regular basis,” she wrote.
But that’s the problem.
Yes, I assume she does the BARE MINIMUM to comply with the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act).
But as our research has discovered, there are tens of thousands of voters still on Nevada’s “active” registration rolls who were not caught by the minimal list maintenance process she’s following – costing taxpayers a bundle in wasted ballot mailings and increasing the potential for voting fraud.
I’m not going to “out” the county clerk at this time. We’re hoping she’ll come around and work with us after she learns more about our project. That said, neither will we be stonewalled and deterred from tackling this problem.
The bottom line is this…
Nevada’s voter registration rolls are filled with ineligible voters. Tens of thousands. Maybe over a hundred thousand.
The individual counties *could* be doing the same thing we’re doing because they have access to the same official governmental data that we do.
But for whatever reason, they’re not.
I won’t get into the “why” here. We’re happy to use the new technology we have access to to help. But we can’t make the counties accept our help.
If or when the time comes, I’ll let you know who’s not playing nice in the sandbox with us and trying to keep the voter rolls “dirty.” Then voters and taxpayers can decide what to do about it.
Cheers!
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“Elected officials of all political stripes should want to prevent election fraud.” – Las Vegas Sun, 5/26/23
Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, publisher of Nevada News & Views and blogs at MuthsTruths.com. His views are his own.
