Attorney General Ford and Secretary of State Aguilar Secure Major Victory Against Unlawful Federal Election Order

Court permanently blocks provisions affecting voter registration, election funding and ballot counting

Carson City, NV — Today, Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford and Nevada Secretary of State Francisco V. Aguilar announced a major victory in a multistate lawsuit co-led by Nevada and California that successfully challenged key provisions of President Trump's executive order on elections. The U.S. District Court granted nearly all of the states' motion for summary judgment, ruling that all the challenged provisions of the executive order are unlawful and permanently barring the federal government from enforcing them.

"Today's ruling is a victory for the Constitution, the rule of law and the states' authority to administer their own elections," said Attorney General Ford. "The court correctly rejected an unlawful attempt by the federal government to rewrite election rules and impose burdensome requirements that infringed on states’ sovereignty and ability to conduct their own elections. Nevada's elections are secure, and as long as I am attorney general, I will continue fighting to protect both the integrity of our elections and every eligible voter's right to cast a ballot."

“Today’s ruling reinforces that elections should be run at the local level, and at its core this case is about protecting access for eligible voters,” said Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar. “The law already requires voters to be citizens and voting is a fundamental constitutional right. When voters have access to the ballot box, they have the power to hold elected officials accountable for the issues that shape their daily lives — the cost of groceries, gas prices, and the ability to afford childcare and support their families. This is part of a broader pattern of federal actions and policy changes indicating just how out of touch the current administration is with the public. The court struck down provisions that would have required documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration; imposed similar requirements on military and overseas voters; threatened to withhold federal election funding from states that do not require documentary proof of citizenship; and sought to prohibit states from counting valid ballots received after Election Day in accordance with state law."

The court also permanently enjoined the federal government from taking any action to implement or enforce those provisions.

In the lawsuit, the states pointed out the executive order’s attempted changes would have required complete overhauls of their state-administered voter registration systems and databases and required significant voter outreach and education to ensure the public understood the new restrictions on voting by Election Day. Both of these burdensome necessities under the executive order’s unlawful mandates would have been done at the states’ expense.

In its decision, the court declared unlawful:

• Section 2(a), which required documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration;
• Section 3(d), which imposed documentary proof of citizenship requirements on military and overseas voters registering to vote;
• Section 4(a), which threatened federal funding for states that do not require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration; and
• Section 7, which sought to prohibit states from counting ballots that are sent on or before Election Day but received after Election Day.
• The court permanently prohibited the federal government from taking action based on those provisions.

Nevada, together with California led a coalition of states including Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin challenged the executive order shortly after it was issued, arguing that the President lacked authority to unilaterally alter election administration rules established by Congress and the states. The coalition further argued that the challenged provisions would interfere with states' constitutional authority to administer elections and create barriers for eligible voters.

The court denied the states' motion only in respects that do not affect Nevada.

###