Electronically Filed 9/1/2020 1:08 PM Steven D. Grierson CLERK OF THE COURT CASE NO: A-20-820510-C Department 32 Case Number: A-20-820510-C These Plaintiffs have standing to bring this suit under the public-importance exception announced by the Nevada Supreme Court in the case of Schwartz v. Lopez, 132 Nev. 732, 737, 382 P.3d 886, 891, 2016 Nev. LEXIS 668, wherein the high court held that a court may grant standing to a Nevada citizen to raise constitutional challenges to legislative expenditures or appr0priations without a showing of a special or personal injury. The public-importance exception is narrow and available only if the following criteria are met: First, the case must involve an issue of Signi?cant public importance. The present case involves an issue of signi?cant public importance, because it challenges AB4 which was recently passed in special session of the Nevada Legislature, a bill which worked profound changes in the voting system of Nevada and opened the coming general election to signi?cant and rampant fraud, as explained further in the allegations of the Complaint set forth below. 3. Second, the case must involve a challenge to a legislative expenditure or appropriation on the basis that it violates a specific provision of the Nevada Constitution. As explained in detail below, this case challenges the manner in which the legislature allocated, or did not allocate, funds, in that the funding of the election violates the Nevada Constitution?s Equal Protection clause, Section 21 Article 4, which is coextensive with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also violates NRS 354.599, prohibiting unfunded mandates from the State of Nevada to local govermnents. 4. Third, the plaintiff must be an ?appropriate? party, meaning that there is no one else in a better position who will likely bring an action and that the plaintiff is capable of fully advocating his or her position in court. 5. Plaintiff THE ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT OF NEVADA, is a tax exempt, public bene?t, non-profit 501(c)(3), non-partisan Nevada LLC dedicated to assuring that every legally cast vote is properly counted and reported. is available to assist citizen groups as well as political OOHJON and business organizations on a non?partisan basis in their efforts to assure integrity in the voting process. EIPNV is an all-volunteer organization. 6. Plaintiff SHARRON ANGLE is a resident of Nevada, a long-time active participant in the political process and elections in Nevada, has run for office several times, served in the Nevada State Legislature, and in general has taken a close interest in the integrity of Nevada elections for many years. She is highly quali?ed to bring this suit because of her years of experience in the political and governmental processes in Nevada, and because she has taken a special interest in protecting the integrity of the Nevada elections system and also in the right of suffrage of all Nevadans. Her vote, as well as the vote of all other Nevada voters, will be diluted and compromised if AB4, the all mail- in voting law passed at the special session of the Nevada Legislature recently concluded, is allowed to be carried out for the general election in November. 7. The Defendant is the Secretary of State of Nevada, Barbara Cegavske. She serves as the Chief Of?cer of Elections for Nevada and is reSponsible for the execution and enforcement of the provisions of title 24 of NRS and all other provisions of state and federal law relating to elections in Nevada under NRS 293.124. She is sued in her of?cial capacity. 11. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AND FACTS 8. Every Nevadan who is eligible to vote should be able to freely do so. Robust participation in our biennial elections strengthen Nevada?s political and governmental processes, allowing Nevadan?s to choose their elected representatives in the traditional, constitutionally and legally guaranteed fashion as established by the Founding Fathers of America and followed and established in the Constitution and laws of the State of Nevada. The Plaintiffs support legitimate efforts to make it convenient for voters to cast their ballots.1 At the same time, however, the electoral process cannot function properly if it lacks integrity and results in chaos. Put simply, the people of Nevada must be able to trust that the election results are the product of free and fair elections which are not determined by corruption and/or fraud accomplished by nefarious practices of unscrupulous persons to gain victory by any means necessary. 10. Nevada?s recently enacted election laws?collectively, AB4?fall far short of ensuring that this standard is met. 11. On a straight?party-line vote taken on a Sunday afternoon, the Nevada Legislature passed a 60-page, single?spaced bill ?rst introduced shortly after noon the previous Friday. AB4 adds more than 25 new election-related sections to the Nevada Revised Statutes and amends more than 60 others. 12. Many of those provisions will undermine the November election?s integrity and some go beyond that, crossing the line that separates bad policy judgments from enactments that violate Nevada?s Constitution and its election laws. 13. This lawsuit is brought for the purpose of ensuring that our elections occur under valid laws. Under the US Constitution, States have broad discretion to decide how to conduct their elections. But the State of Nevada, through its Constitution and laws enacted under that Constitution, has established laws which must be followed in order to ensure free and fair elections where the electors may be assured that the results are not the product of fraud or other illegal practices. 14. AB4 enacts many unconstitutional and illegal provisions. Some of these are as follows: It should be made clear that EIPNV does not oppose absentee balloting. Absentee ballots are not mail-in ballots, because absentee ballots must be requested, while mail in ballots are sent to all voters. Ixillegal because it CONTAINS UNFUNDED MANDATES: AB4 violates Nevada Law, NRS 354.599, prohibiting unfunded mandates from the State of Nevada to local governments. 16. This law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AB4 violates the Nevada Constitution Article 4 Section 21 which is coextensive with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This law violates Article 4, Section 21, Nevada?s guarantee of equal protection,2 in numerous ways outlined below. 111. FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF ELECTIONS INTEGRITY PROJECT A. Declaration of Plaintiff Sharron Angle (Exh. 1) establishes the following ?ndings of the Election Integrity Project 17. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all of the above paragraphs 1-16 and incorporate them herein by reference. 18. ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT NEVADA FINDINGS: 19. Multiple Or Duplicate Voting At Vote Centers: Sections 11-14 of AB4 establish various requirements relating to polling places and voter registration for affected elections subject to sections 2-27, including requirements relating to: (1) polling places established for early voting by personal appearance; (2) polling places established as vote centers; 20. Vote centers remove the voter from his precinct where he is known and allows for impersonation, especially when no ID is required, and also allows for multiple voting by using sample ballots or ?found ballots? where nefarious voters travel from one vote center to another rather than appearing at the precinct where the voter is registered. This multiple voting is part of the 2 And it violates the provisions set forth in the newly proposed and soon to be rati?ed Nevada Constitution Article 2. - Right of Suffrage, Section 1, Voter?s Rights. ??ndings? sent to the Secretary of State, Barbara Cegavske by Election Integrity Project Nevada (ElPNv.c0m) on July 24, 2020. 21. Finding 8: Duplicated Voter Registrations: 22. Notwithstanding the legal obligations to eliminate duplicate names from the list, has identi?ed 1,289 persons who appear to be registered twice in the state. Each occurrence has the same/similar name and same/ similar birthdate at the same address or differing addresses in the state. This includes persons who appear to be registered under both maiden and married last names. Matching phone numbers provide additional evidence for suspected duplicates at differing addresses. Duplicated registrants can easily vote by mail more than once undetected. 23. Finding Suspected Double Voting There are 9 suspected duplicated registrants whose voting histories, if they are confirmed as duplicates, show they voted twice in an election. Five appear to have voted twice in the June 2020 primary because they each had two Active registrations and were mailed two ballots.3 24. Finding 10: Registrants to be Mailed Two Ballots for November 2020 Should Nevada not correct the registrations it con?rms as duplicated, as many as 1,226 registrants will be mailed two ballots for the November 2020 election. This includes 849 who each appear to have two Active registrations and 377 additional registrants in Clark County who have one or both registrations as Inactive status, should Clark County include lnactives in its mailed ballot plans. Persons sent more than one ballot can easily vote more than once undetected. 25. Voter impersonation is also more likely when one voter can travel from vote center to vote center impersonating someone with an active?but not voting in several years- status. 3 analysis of potential double voting excluded 12 counties which currently have incorrect voting histories for the June 2020 election. 26. Finding Delayed Inactivations has identi?ed 41,040 Nevada registrant whose records show no indications of registration updates or federal voting activity since November 2, 2010 or prior. Since these registrants have likely relocated or died, they may be eligible for inactivation or cancellation, yet they remain in ?Active? status. Voting histories indicate 3,331 have not voted in 16 or more years and 22,151 have records indicating, they have NEVER voted since registering to vote a decade or more ago. Clark County has 38,103 of the potential delayed inactivations, more than 3% of its Active registrations. 27. Finding ?Delayed Inactivations? to be Mailed Ballots for November 2020 Should Nevada mail ballots to all Active-status registrants for the November 2020 election, as many as 41,050-- who may instead be eligible for inactivation or cancellation?Will be mailed ballots, including 38,103 in Clark County. These ballots, if they fall into the wrong hands, could be voted by persons other than the voter named on the ballot. 28. Finding Delayed Cancellations: There are 18,290 registrants who were previously inactivated by a county or the state yet remain on the voter list despite no indications of registration updates or voting activity since November 2, 2010 or prior. These registrations may be eligible for cancellation under federal law and Nevada state law 293.530]. 9,049 have records indicating they have NEVER voted since registering to vote a decade or more ago. Clark County has 14,327 of the suspected delayed cancellations and Washoe County has 1,673. For this finding EIPNV assumes that?quoting from the Defendant?s May 29, 2020 press release-- . .in order for a registered voter to be designated as inactive, a piece of election mail sent to the voter must have been returned as undeliverable and the voter must have failed to respond to a mailer asking the voter to confirm their voter registration information. . and that ..If an inactive registered voter fails to vote in two federal election cycles four years) and the inactive registered voter has no other voter activity during this time, their voter registration in Nevada is cancelled.? Again, these ballots could be voted improperly. 29. Finding ?Delaved Cancellations? to be Mailed Ballots for November 2020 Should Clark County mail ballots to all Inactive?status registrants for the November 2020 election, as it did for the June 2020 primary, as many as 14,327 registrants-- who may instead be eligible for cancellation?will be mailed ballots, opening the way for voting by the wrong individuals. 30. Same Day Voter Registration: AB4 Sections 11-14 (3) voter registration at polling places on election day Same day registration is problematic because there is no time to authenticate the voter against residence, citizenship, or deceased rolls. If people who reside somewhere else, are not citizens, or are dead are voting, Plaintiff Angle?s and every other voter?s vote is diluted, which violates the law and injures Plaintiffs and all other voters? Constitutional rights. The only remedy is for this Court to issue its order invalidating AB4. 31. Finding Registrants Aged 105 or Older and Likely Deceased Notwithstanding the legal requirement to maintain voter registration lists that are free of dead registrants, there are 74 registrants whose birthdates indicate they are 105+ years old and likely deceased. Once again, these ballots might be sent in by persons other than the registered voter. 32. Finding Registrants Aged 105+ to be Mailed Ballots for November 2020 Should Nevada mail ballots to all Active registrants for the November 2020 election, 63 registrants aged 105+ and likely deceased will be mailed ballots. This includes 40 of Active status and 23 additional Inactive status registrants aged 105+ should Clark County mail ballots to Inactive registrants as it did for the June 2020 primary. 33. Signature Veri?cation Not Required. AB4 Sections 23, 39 and 69 revise these existing procedures and set forth standards for determining when there is a reasonable question of fact as to whether the signature used for an absent ballot, mailing ballot or mail ballot matches the signature of the voter. 34. This is a new requirement that will add extra work to the registrar and may get them to accept signatures they would otherwise reject because of this added workload. 35. AB4 makes it much to easy for a substitute signature to be af?xed to the mail in ballot and still pass muster and be counted. The operative language states: 2. For purposes of There is a reasonable question of fact as to whether the signature used for the mail ballot matches the signature of the voter if the signature usedfor the mail ballot differs in multiple, signi?cant and obvious respects from the signatures of the voter available in the records ofthe clerk. There is not a reasonable question offact as to whether the signature used for the mail ballot matches the signature of the voter iff?) The signature usedfor the mail ballot is a variation of the signature of the voter caused by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name or the use of a common nickname and it does not otherwise di?er in multiple, significant and obvious respects from the signatures of the voter available in the records of the clerk; Thus, if variations of the legal name or signature are acceptable, then this creates an opportunity for multiple ballots to be cast under the legal name, another under the initials, another under the nickname, etc. 36. Finding Missing Information: There are 1,657 registrants who are missing a birthdate, appear to be missing a legal name, or have a non-alpha character in their names. The Nevada voter registration af?davit requires registrants to list their names as they appear on their Nevada driver license, state ID card or Social Security card, but a majority of the 1,657 have what appear to be ?nickname? initials in place of their legal ?rst names. Such missing information hinders the state?s ability to con?rm these registrants? eligibility and to match with death, NCOA and other records required for list maintenance. 37. If a persorfs signature does not have to be of?cial or legal then there is more possibility of voter impersonation and multiple voting under different signatures. This opens the door for fraudulent voting which dilutes an honest voter?s vote and which violates the law and injures Plaintiffs and all voters Constitutional rights. 38. Opening Mail-In Ballots And Counting Them 15 Davs Before The Election: Sections 22-27ofthis bill revise these existing procedures and provide that such counting boards can begin their process of counting the returned absent ballots, mailing ballots and mail ballots 15 days before the election. 39. The separation of the ballot from the signature envelope keeps the ballot from being removed from the count if the signature or the person who cast the ballot is challenged. These challenges must take place at the time the ballot is received, requiring overseers of the counting process to be in attendance for 11 more days than the existing law. It is unreasonable to expect that volunteers will be in attendance for 1 additional days. If a court ?nds that ineligible votes have been cast, if the ballot is not intact there is no way to remove those ineligible votes from the system. The court?s determination may be, ?Yes there was fraud and the election is corrupted but we don?t know who the corrupted ballots voted for.? The lengthening of time for counting impairs oversight, inviting possible corruption. This would allow the vote to be counted and the information released prior to election day, causing people to react the results by not casting a vote if their candidate appeared to be losing. 40. When illegal votes are counted Plaintiff?s vote is diluted. Dilution of Plaintiff?s vote is a violation of the law and the Constitution. 41. Ballot Harvesting: AB4 sections 15-27 establish certain election procedures for the mail ballots distributed to active registered voters for affected elections subject to sections 2-27. Because these particular election procedures relating to absent ballots, mailing ballots and mail ballots serve similar purposes, sections 15?83 make conforming changes in order to align all the provisions and make them uniform 10 their operation for Nevada's elections. Under existing law, at the request of a voter who has a physical disability or is at least 65 years of age or under certain other circumstances, a person may mark and sign an absent ballot on behalf of the voter or assist voter to mark and sign the absent ballot ifthe person complies with certain requirements. (NRS 293.316, 293.3165, 293C317, 293C318) Sections 19ofthis bill provide that at the request ofa voter who has a physical disability, is at least 65 years of age or is unable to read or write. Sections 21this bill: (I) allow a voter to authorize any person to return an absent ballot, mailing ballot or mail ballot to the county or city clerk on behalf of the voter; 42. Allowing ?any person? to assist in this process encourages fraud. Instead, a request for assistance should be made in writing to the registrar who should send a deputy to assist since this is a form of ballot harvesting which if done by campaign workers would often mean that imprOper pressure or even coercion is placed upon the elderly or disabled vulnerable voter. Since age is noted on the registration rolls, those older voters may be targeted by ballot harvesters who at least be casting the vote for that person 01' impersonating their vote. Assistance must be done by a trusted and impartial deputy of the election board. Since this is a form of ballot harvesting, a practice proven to be fraught with fraudulent opportunity for hired ?boletera? for example. This would create an atmosphere for a trunk full of ballots to come in after the election. ?About 6,700 ballots were not counted in this year?s Nevada the primary election after officials could not match signatures on the ballots, according to the Nevada Secretary of State?s Office.?4 Since Plaintiff is over 65 this means that she may be targeted by ballot harvesters which is a form of harassment and discrimination. My right to privacy and equal protection are violated. To remedy this injury, the Secretary of State should be enjoined from implementing and enforcing A134. 4 ll 43. Unable To Determine If Ballot Is Cast On Time: AB4 Sections 20, 37 and 67 ofthis bill provide that to be timely returned by mail, an absent ballot, mailing ballot or mail ballot must be postmarked on or before the day of the election and received by the county or city clerk not later than 5 p.111. on the seventh day following the election. Sections 20, 37 and 67 also provide that if the county or city clerk is unable to determine the date of the postmark on such a ballot, but the ballot is received by the clerk not later than 5 pm. on the third day following the election, the ballot is deemed to have been postmarked on or before the day of the election. 44. This extends the length of the election and allows nefarious opportunities to more ballots. Once again this makes the Election Day arbitrary and underlines the failings of the postal service, making the mail?in ballot less secure. It will be impossible to know with the extension to seven days past the election for allowing ballots to be accepted, if those ballots were marked before the election or after the results were announced. It gives opportunity to more ballots if someone wants to change the election results. 45. According to a request made by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, ?Of the 1,325,934 ballots mailed out in Clark, 223,469 were returned as undeliverable. About 305,000 were returned by voters, veri?ed and counted by the county. About 58 percent of the undeliverable ballots belonged to inactive voters those who have failed to con?rm their address with the county but remain registered. Inactive voters are removed from the rolls entirely if they miss two consecutive federal elections. However, 93,585 undeliverable ballots belonged to voters classi?ed as active in Clark County?s voter rolls. Public Interest also audited the Clark County and Nevada state voter rolls and found that 2,358 people on the state?s active rolls were deceased. More than 2,200 of these came from Clark County.?5 ?The foundation reported that based on its study, Clark County mailed 5 095 001/ 12 oxo 1,325,934 ballots to voters. Of that number, 223,469 were returned as undeliverable. In Washoe County, 291,434 ballots were mailed, and 27,640 were returned.?6 46. ?Thousands of ballots have been sent out by the Clark County Election Department to inactive voters those who have not voted in recent elections, a roster that can include people who either have moved or are deceased and the envelopes are piling up in post of?ce trays, outside apartment complexes and on community bulletin boards in and around Las Vegas.? 7 (As pictured below?discarded ballots available for anyone to pick up, ?ll out, and send in. 6 returned-undeliverable 7 13 LA.) 422:. 47. Finding 10: Registrants to be Mailed Two Ballots for November 2020 Should Nevada not correct the registrations it con?rms as duplicated, as many as 1,226 registrants will be mailed two ballots for the November 2020 election. This includes 849 who each appear to have two Active registrations and 377 additional registrants in Clark County who have one or both registrations as Inactive status, should Clark County include inactives in its mailed ballot plans. Persons sent more than one ballot can easily vote more than once undetected. 48. Just by doing the math, 1,325,934 ballots mailed out in Clark, 223,469 were retumed as undeliverable, 305,000 were returned by voters, veri?ed and counted by the county there over 500,000 ballots that are unaccounted for in the primary election. It is reported that those ballots were ?piling up in post of?ce trays, outside apartment complexes and on community bulletin boards in and around Las Vegas? ripe for using to sway an election if the same processes are followed and the safeguards of the ?old? law are abandoned for implementation of AB4. This shows the chaos inherent in all mail voting. 49. Additionally, the ?ndings show that 5 voters who have voted twice in the past also voted twice in the 2020 primary making them part of the 305,000 ?verified and counted? ballots. If 5 slipped through and voted, thus diluting the vote of legal voters, in the preliminary ?ndings of for registrations from 2010 or before, how many more duplicate voters actually voted if we looked at the registrations from 2010 to 2018? The presence of the documented fraudulent vote of 5 voters is evidence that the vote in Nevada is not secure, fair or honest. It also proves that the provisions of AB4 will only exacerbate the problem. Since Plaintiffs vote was diluted in the June 2020 primary election by this fraud, the only remedy for this injury is that Defendant Secretary of State should be enjoined from implementing and enforcing AB4. 14 UNFUNDED MANDATES 50. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all of the above paragraphs 1-49 and incorporate them herein by reference. 51. AB4 CONTAINS UNFUNDED MANDATES: AB4 violates Nevada Law prohibiting unfunded mandates from State of Nevada to local governments. NRS 354.599 states that a ?Specified source of additional revenue [is] required under certain circumstances when Legislature directs local governmental action requiring additional funding. If the Legislature directs one 01' more local governments to: 1. Establish a program or provide a service; or 2. Increase a program or service already established which requires additional funding, - - and the expense required to be paid by each local government to establish, provide or increase the program or service is $5,000 or more, a speci?ed source for the additional revenue to pay the expense must be authorized by a specific statute. The additional revenue may only be used to pay expenses directly related to the program or service. If a local government has money from any other source available to pay such expenses, that money must be applied to the expenses before any money from the revenue source specified by statute 52. AB4 does not fully nor adequately fund the mandate to local governments: Sec. 84. 1. States: ?The Chief of the Budget Division shall transfer the sum of $2,000,000 from Budget Account 101?1327 to the Secretary of State for the costs related to the preparation and distribution of mail ballots pursuant to the provisions of sections 2 25 to 27, inclusive, of this act for the 2020 General Election. But Defendant Cegavske has admitted that the equipment, education, printing and postage would cost the Secretary of State?s of?ce an additional $3 million, not including costs to counties, which distribute and tabulate ballots. 15 53. Nevada spent more than $4 million in federal relief dollars in the June primary, most of which it funneled to counties. More than $1 million went toward leasing, counting and sorting machines to accommodate a greater number of absentee ballots.8 54. According to the ?scal note from the county of Plaintiff Angle?s residence, Washoe County, AB4 will cost an additional $1.9 million. This cost alone will take all of the $2 million funded in A84. There are also state costs as well as the unfunded cost of 16 other counties including Clark County with the largest number of registered voters of 1.5 million. Washoe County has 281,000 active registered voters or one?sixth the number of voters in Clark County. If the Washoe County election based on AB4 requirements will cost $1.9 million it could reasonably be expected that Clark County?s costs alone would be six times that amount, or 11.4 million dollars, far beyond the $2 million allocated by the State Legislature. See Exh. 2. 55. According to these sources, AB4 is unfunded or grossly underfunded and therefore is an illegal law under Nevada?s law against unfunded mandates, NRS 354.599, from the state to the local governments. Because this mandate will become a local burden, the taxpayers, including Plaintiff Angle, will become responsible for the payment of this shortfall either through increased tax burden or loss of services because of funds being reallocated to cover the cost of the election. 56. The remedy for this injury to Plaintiff Angle and to all taxpayers of Nevada is strike this law as illegal and prohibit it from being implemented. IV. AB 4 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION 57. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all of the above paragraphs 1?56 and incorporate them herein by reference. 3 .com/ st01y/11ews/2 020/ 08/ 04/trumn?ca1npai initiative/3297017001/ 16 58. AB4 violates the Nevada Constitution Article 4 Section 2, which mandates that ?all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State.? The Courts have held that this section of the Nevada Constitution is coextensive with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. ?The U.S. Const. amendment XIV forbids an enactment that denies any person equal protection of the laws. The Nevada Constitution. Art. 4, 21 requires that all laws be general and of uniform operation throughout the state. The standard for testing the validity of legislation under the equal protection clause of the state constitution is the same as the federal standard. Barrett v. Baird, 11 1 Nev. 1496, 1499, 908 P.2d 689, 692, 1995 Nev. LEXIS 182, Rico v. Rodriguez, 121 Nev. 695, 702-03, 120 P.3d 812, 817 (2005). Thus, Equal Protection requires equal access for all voters to elections. 59. An amendment entitled ?Rights of Voters? has been proposed and passed twice by the Legislature. It will undoubtedly become law after the general election of 2020. It guarantees equal access to voting opportunities, thus defining with more certainly voting rights of voters in Nevada. See Exh. 3. 60. Nevertheless, all of these protections are already built into Article 4 Section 2 because of the ?coextensive? rulings by the Nevada Supreme Court. Thus, the pronouncements of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment are all incorporated into Nevada law. A. The Unequal Allocation of In-Person Polling Places Does Not Provide Equal Treatment of Voters and is thus Unconstitutional 61. Sections 11 and 12 of AB4 are unconstitutional. Those sections set forth the number of in- person polling places for early voting (Section 1 1) and vote centers for day?of?election voting (Section 12). Under those sections, the number of in?person voting places a county must establish is tied to the county?s population, resulting in more in?person voting places per capita for voters in urban counties than in rural counties due to the fact that the number of voters allocated for the in- 17 10 11 12 13 14 person voting centers in the large counties per capita is greater than the number of in person voting centers allotted to the voters, per capita, in the smaller counties. 62. This arrangement violates rural voters? rights under the Equal Protection Clause, since there are not as many voting centers per capita for them as there are in the large counties, making it more dif?cult for the rural county voters to cast their votes. This is an unlawful AND unconstitutional expenditure of funds to establish these unequally distributed and established voting centers. 63. By limiting their ability to cast ballots via in-person voting through reduced numbers of polling places and vote centers, Sections 1 and 12 of AB4 engage in disparate treatment with respect to rural voters. The United States Supreme Court has given guidance regarding this unequal treatment: citizen, a quali?ed voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm.? Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US. 533, 568 (1964). AB4 infringes ?the basic principle of equality among voters within a State . . . that voters cannot be classi?ed, constitutionally, on the basis of where they live.? Id. at 560. B. Standardless Counting Procedures 64. EQUAL PROTECTION for voters also means that a uniform standard for counting and recounting all votes must be established statewide. If ballots are counted under different rules and standards, then the accuracy and reliability of the tabulations will necessarily vary among the counties. 65. Section 22 of AB4 requires each ?county or city clerk? (as applicable) to ?establish procedures for the processing and counting of mail ballots.? Section 22 of AB4 provides no guidance or guardrails of any kind for the establishment of ?procedures for the processing and counting of mail ballots.? It envisions the creation of procedures and rules by each county clerk/registrar without any central control over those procedures, which will inevitably result in a different set of rules in each or the 17 counties. 18 66. Section 22 of AB4 requires each ?county or city clerk? (as applicable) to ?establish procedures for the processing and counting of mail ballots.? Section 22 of AB4 provides no guidance or guardrails of any kind for the establishment of ?procedures for the processing and counting of mail ballots.? Section 22 provides no uniform statewide standard for processing and counting mail-in ballots by authorizing ?standardless? procedures for the processing and counting of mail ballots, without speci?c state-wide rules designed to ensure uniform treatment. 67. Therefore, Sections 11 and 12 of AB4 violate Nevada?s Constitutional equal protection clause which requires uniform standards and procedures for processing and counting ballots throughout the State. 68. There is no adequate remedy at law for voters in the rural counties. They will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless the state is enjoined from implementing and enforcing Sections 11 and 12 of AB4. C. Section 22 provides no ?minimal procedural safeguards? to protect against the ?unequal evaluation? of mail ballots. 69. The Supreme Court has instructed that the ?formulation of uniform rules? is ?necessary? because the ?want of? such rules may lead to ?unequal evaluation of ballots.? Bush 12. Gore, 531 US. 98, 106 (2000). This rule applies in Nevada under Nevada?s Equal Protection Constitutional guarantee, Art. 4, 21. 70. Nevertheless, Section 22 provides no ?minimal procedural safeguards? to protect against the ?unequal evaluation? of mail ballots. Id. at 109, 130. Section 22 of AB4 instructs each county or city clerk that they ?may authorize mail ballots to be processed and counted by electronic means.? Nevada?s counties thus have the option of processing and counting mail ballots by either electronic means (of any kind, apparently) or manually. 71. Section 22 tints expressly authorizes Nevada?s counties to ?use[] varying standards to determine what [i]s a legal vote,? contrary to the US. Supreme Court?s uniform rules requirement. 19 ix107, 133. Section 22 of AB4 thus violates the Equal Protection Clause, referencing again the Supreme Court of Nevada?s interpretation of the requirement of Section 21 of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution that ?all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State? to be coextensive with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person ?5 vote over that of another. It must be remembered that the right of su?iage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise. Bush v. Gore, 531 US. 98, 104?05 (2000), (Emphasis added.) 73. In particular, the Equal Protection Clause imposes a ?minimum requirement for nonarbitrarv treatment of voters? and forbids voting systems and practices that distribute election resources in a ?standardless? fashion, without ?specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.? Bush v. Gore, 531 US. 98, 105?06 (2000); League of Women Voters othio v. 548 F.3d 463, 477?78 (6th Cir. 2008). The United States Supreme Court has instructed that the ?formulation of uniform rules? is ?necessary? because the ?want of? such rules may lead to ?unequal evaluation of ballots.? Id. 74. Section 25 of AB4 provides that two or more mail ballots are found folded together to present the appearance of a single enve10pe,? and ?a majority of the inspectors are of the opinion that the mail ballots folded together were voted by one person, the mail ballots must be rejected.? ?25.2. 75. Section 25 provides no guidance or guardrails of any kind for the establishment of standards ?a majority of inspectors should apply to determine whether ?the mail ballots folded together were voted by one person. Section 25 thus violates the ?minimum requirement for nonarbitrary treatment of voters? by authorizing ?standardless? procedures for determining the 20 validity of multiple ballots within a single enveIOpe, without ?specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.? Bush v. Gore, 531 US. 98, 105-06 (2000). 76. Further, Section 25 provides no ?minimal procedural safeguards? to protect against the ?unequal evaluation? of multiple ballots within a single envelope. Id. at 109. 77. Section 25 of AB4 thus violates the Equal Protection Clause, Section 21 Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution. 78. Sharron Angle will suffer serious and irreparable harm to her constitutional rights unless the state is enjoined from implementing and enforcing Section 25 of AB4. D. AB4 will allow ballots cast after election day to be counted unlawfully 79. AB4, which upends Nevada?s election laws and requires massive changes in election procedures and processes, makes voter fraud and other ineligible voting inevitable. AB4 requires counties to accept and count ballots received after Election Day? including ballots that may have been mailed after Election Day. 20.2. 80. But the Nevada Constitution ORDINANCE 5 requires the ballots cast to be counted immediately after the election. That section provides: 5. Election returns. The Judges and Inspectors of said elections shall carefully count each ballot immediately after said elections, and forthwith make duplicate returns thereof to the clerks of the said County Commissioners of their respective Counties. . . . (Emphasis added.) 81. AB4 contravenes Section 5 by requiring elections of?cials to accept and count ballots received after Election Day even when those ballots lack objective evidence that voters cast them on or before Election Day. In short, AB4 effectively postpones and prolongs Nevada?s 2020 general election past the Election Day. 21 82. The Nevada Constitution Art. 4, 4 entitled ?Senators: Election and term of of?ce; eligibility for of?ce, provides: 1. Senators shall be chosen at the same time and places as members of the Assembly by the quali?ed electors of their respective districts, and their term of Of?ce shall be four Years from the day next after their election. 83. The Nevada Constitution, Art. 17, 10 also provides: At the general election in AD. Eighteen hundred and Sixty Six; and thereafter, the term of Senators shall be for Four Years from the day succeeding such general election, and members of Assembly for Two Years from the day succeeding such general election. . . . See also Nev. Const. Art. 17, 11 and Nev. Const. Art. 4, 3. 84. AB4 calls into question the term of the elected and Senators because it extends the voting date beyond the one established by law. 85. Section 20.2 of AB4 con?icts with the above quoted sections of the Nevada Constitution by permitting absent ballots that have not been postmarked to be counted if they are received by 5:00 pm three days after Election Day (based on a presumption that those ballots were mailed on or before Election Day). 86. Absent ballots are mailed to the county clerk for the county in which the voter resides. Then the absent ballots are delivered by the US. Postal Service via First Class mail. But the estimated delivery time for First Class mail from one place in any Nevada county to another place within the same county is typically less than three days. 87. Section 20.2 of AB4 thus allows absent ballots to be cast after Election Day to still be counted as lawfully cast votes in the 2020 general election. 88. Thus, Section 20.2 of AB4 is a particularly egregious violation of Nevada?s voting laws because it allows for absentee ballots to be cast after Election Day. 89. What this means is that if a candidate or a party believes that the voting in that candidate?s election is close, they can corruptly gather up unvoted ballots (via ballot harvesting) in that district, 22 OOH-JON get them completed fraudulently, and then mail them in on the day after the election in order to weight the vote in their favor. CONCLUSION OF GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 90. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and enforcing AB4 20.2. It establishes a disparate number of in?person places for early voting and Election Day voting throughout Nevada based on a county?s population, resulting in fewer in?person voting places for rural voters. 1, 12. It fails to establish uniform statewide standards for processing and counting ballots, ?22, or for determining whether multiple ballots received in one envelope must be rejected, ?25. It also authorizes ballot harvesting. ?21. The combined effect of those problematic provisions is to dilute honest votes. Dilution of honest votes, to any degree, by the casting of fraudulent or illegitimate votes violates the right to vote. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964); Anderson V. United States, 417 US . 211, 226?2794 (1974); Baker v. Carr, 369 US. 186, 208 (1962), Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 US. 208, 223 (1974). 91. The aSpects of AB4 identified above facilitate fraud and other illegitimate voting practices for the reasons described above. Those provisions thus dilute the value of honest, lawful votes and therefore, violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the US. Constitution, Article 4 Section 21 of the Nevada Constitution and the equal access clause of the voter?s rights in Article 2 1A section 9 of the Nevada Constitution. 92. Because of the aforementioned arguments, AB4 is unconstitutional and Plaintiff Angle will suffer serious and irreparable harm to her constitutional rights unless the state is enjoined from implementing and enforcing AB4. 23 CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT Violation of NRS 354.599 1. AB4 CONTAINS UNFUNDED MANDATES: AB4 violates Nevada Law prohibiting unfunded mandates from State of Nevada to local governments. NRS states that a ?Speci?ed source of additional revenue [is] required under certain circumstances when Legislature directs local governmental action requiring additional funding. If the Legislature directs one or more local governments to: 1. Establish a program or provide a service; or 2. Increase a program or service already established which requires additional funding, and the expense required to be paid by each local government to establish, provide or increase the program or service is $5,000 or more, a speci?ed source for the additional revenue to pay the expense must be authorized by a speci?c statute. The additional revenue may only be used to pay expenses directly related to the program or service. If a local government has money from any other source available to pay such expenses, that money must be applied to the expenses before any money from the revenue source specified by statute 2. AB4 does not fully or adequately fund the mandate to local governments to carry out an all-mail-in ballots election, as set forth in paragraphs 54 through 60 of the above complaint. 3. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm by transferring almost the entire burden of funding the all mail?in ballot election costs, which will result in either an increased tax burden or a decrease in county services to the Plaintiff Sharron Angle unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and enforcing A84. COUNT II Violation of the Equal Protection Clause ?The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person?s vote 24 \10over that of another. It must be remembered that the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen?s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.? Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000). See paragraphs 61?93, set forth above. 1. AB 4 violates the Nevada Constitution Article 4, 21 which requires that all laws be general and of uniform operation throughout the state in the following particulars, outlined more fully in the complaint: a. The Unequal Allocation of In-Person Polling Places Does Not Provide Equal Treatment of Voters and thus Unconstitutional b. Standardless Counting Procedures: EQUAL PROTECTION for voters means that a uniform standard for counting and recounting all votes must be established statewide. If ballots are counted under different rules and standards, then the accuracy and reliability of the tabulations will necessarily vary among the counties. c. Section 22 provides no minimal procedural safeguards to protect against the unequal evaluation of mail ballots: The formulation of uniform rules is necessary because the want of such rules may lead to ?unequal evaluation of ballots.? Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 106 (2000): AB4 Section 22 provides no ?minimal procedural safeguards? to protect against the ?unequal evaluation? of mail ballots. d. AB4 will allow ballots cast after election day to be counted unlawfully: AB4 makes voter fraud and other ineligible voting inevitable. AB4 requires counties to accept and count ballots received after Election Day? including ballots that may have been mailed after Election Day. 20.2, thus diluting Plaintiffs? votes. 6. AB4 allows for and permits the following fraudulent abuses of election procedures, resulting in dishonest and incorrect voting totals: 1. Multiple or Duplicate Voting at Vote Centers; 2. Delayed Inactivations and Delayed Cancellations will result in ballots being mailed to persons dead or no longer living at that address; 25 MJON Same Day Voter Registration: AB4 Sections 1 1?14 (3) provides insufficient time to authenticate a voters? identity, thus resulting in fraudulent or unauthorized votes being cast; 4. Registrants Aged 105 or Older and Likely Deceased will be mailed ballots, resulting in living people voting those ballots unlawfully; 5. Proper Voter Signature Veri?cation Not Required by AB4 Sections 23, 39 and 69, resulting in fraudulent voting; 6. Missing Information on a voter?s registration_hinders the state?s ability to confirm these registrants? eligibility and to match with death, NCOA and other records required for list maintenance. If a person?s signature does not have to be of?cial or legal then there is more possibility of voter impersonation and multiple voting under different signatures, thus diluting the votes of prOperly identified registered voters. 7. Opening mail?in ballots and counting them 15 days before the election: Sections 22-27resulting in being able to identify who actually cast the ballot. 8. Ballot Harvesting from the elderly: Sections 19this bill provide that at the request of a voter who has a physical disability, is at least 65 years of age or is unable to read or write . Sections 21this bill: (1) allow a voter to authorize any person to return an absent ballot, mailing ballot or mail ballot to the county or city clerk on behalf of the voter; Since age is noted on the registration rolls, those older voters may be targeted by ballot harvesters who may be casting the vote for that person or impersonating their vote. This is a form of ballot harvesting a practice proven to be fraught with fraudulent opportunity to take advantage of older or disadvantaged people. 9. Other violations of equal protection as set forth in the main body of the complaint. 3. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendant is enjoined from implementing and enforcing AB4. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter judgment in their favor and provide the following relief: a. A declaratory judgment that AB4 violates NRS 354.599 (unfunded mandates) and Nevada Constitution Article 4, 21, the Equal Protection clause, coextensive with the U.S. 26 ?Constitution?s 14th Amendment; b. A preliminary injunction granting the relief prohibiting Defendant from implementing and enforcing AB4 during the pendency of this action; 0. A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from implementing and enforcing d. Plaintiffs? reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys? fees; and e. All other preliminary and permanent relief that Plaintiffs are entitled to, and that the Court deems just and proper. DATED this 1St day of September, 2020. Respectfully submitted, HANSEN NS N, LLC BYI vadg: ?el . Hansen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 1876 9030 W. Cheyenne Ave. #210 Las Vegas, NV 89129 Art'omeyfor Plaintz?s 27 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 1 DECLARATION OF SHARRON ANGLE REGARDING ILLEGALITY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF ASSEMBLY BILL 4 OF THE 2020 NEVADA 32nd SPECIAL SESSION I, Sharron Angle, make this declaration before God and under penalties of perjury. AB4 is Illegal and Unconstitutional for the following reasons: 1. CONTAINS UNFUNDED MANDATE: AB4 violates Nevada Law prohibiting unfunded mandates from State of Nevada to local governments. NRS 354.599 Speci?ed source of additional revenue required under certain circumstances when Legislature directs local governmental action requiring additional funding. If the Legislature directs one or more local governments to: 1. Establish a program or provide a service; or 2. Increase a program or service already established which requires additional funding, and the expense required to be paid by each local government to establish, provide or increase the program or service is $5,000 or more, a Specified source for the additional revenue to pay. the expense must be authorized by a speci?c statute. The additional revenue may only be used to pay expenses directly related to the program or service. If a local government has money from any other source available to pay such expenses, that money must be applied to the expenses before any money from the revenue source specified by statute. (Added to NRS by1969 800; A1971. 236; 1975. 1686;1979, 1241;1981. 312;1987, 1669; 1993. 1349; 1999, 1181;2001. 1804) AB4 does not fully nor adequately fund the mandate to local governments: Sec. 84. 1. The Chief of the Budget Division shall transfer the sum of $2,000,000 from Budget Account 101?1327 to the Secretary of State for the costs related to the preparation and distribution of mail ballots pursuant to the provisions of sections 2 25 to 27, inclusive, of this act for the 2020 General Election. But Secretary Cegavske said that the equipment, education, printing and postage would cost the Secretaly of State?s office an additional $3 million, not including costs to counties, which distribute and tabulate ballots. Nevada spent more than $4 million in federal relief dollars in the June primary, most of which it funneled to counties. More than $1 million went toward leasing counting and sorting machines to accommodate a greater number of absentee ballots. rgi .com/storv/news/2020/0 8/ ballot?initiative/3297017001/ According to the ?scal note from the county of my residence, Washoe County, AB4 will cost an additional $1.9 million. This cost alone will take all of the $2million funded in AB4. There are also state costs as well as the unfunded cost of 16 other counties including the Clark County with the largest number of registered million. Washoe County has 281,000 active registered voters or one?sixth the number of voters in Clark County. If the Washoe County election based on AB4 requirements will cost $1.9 million it could reasonably be expected that Clark Counties costs alone would be six times that amount. Washoe County Assembly Bill 4 Description of service or product Total Cost Session] 32nd2020Specia1/F iscalNotes/2055.pdf Postage Permit 539 (non pro?t)? Sample Ballot $60,000.00 0 Postage Permit 215 (First Class)- Election Ballolt $220,000.00 0 Mail Ballot envelopes(outgoing returning) domestic/overseas instructions secrecy sleves 1,373,850 pieces $110,340.61 0 Mail in Ballots/Counter Ballots/packet assembly/delivery/subsequent extracts/freight 314,5 63? printed 294,161?mailed $168,411.83 0 Sample Ballot 304,200 0.196 $60,378.20 Metro - Shipping $755.00 0 Moving Company $25,000.00 delivery drop off sites 0 additional lCC's 2 $17,500 Dominion ICC ballot scanners 0 Secure Mail Ballot Drop Boxes $25,000.00 0 Mail scanner/sorter of return ballots $250,000.00 have quotes from a few vendors 0 Personal Protective Equipment for office staff and election workers $110,000.00 0 Absent Ballot Elections workers Early Voting $69,300.00 $11 per hour a 4 additional EV workers per site $66,528.00 $11 per hour a 4 additional ED workers per site $11,000.Total unfunded costs of AB4 $1,193,458.64 According to these sources, AB4 is unfunded and therefore and illegal law under Nevada?s law against unfunded mandates from the state to the local governments. Because this mandate will become a local burden, as a taxpayer, I will become responsible for the payment of this shortfall either through increased tax burden or loss of services because funds were reallocated to cover the cost of the election. The remedy for this injury to me as a taxpayer is strike this law as illegal and prohibit it from being implemented. 2. UNCONSTITUTIONAL AB4 violates the Nevada Constitution Section 21 Article 4 which is coextensive with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and requiring equal access for all voters to elections. 0 By limiting their ability to cast ballots via in-person voting through reduced numbers of polling places and vote centers, Sections 11 and 12 of AB4 engage in disparate treatment with respect to rural voters. citizen, a quali?ed voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm.? Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US. 533, 568 (1964). AB4 infringes ?the basic principle of equality among voters within a State that voters cannot be classi?ed, constitutionally, on the basis of where they live.? Id. at 560. 0 Section 22 of AB4 requires each ?county or city clerk? (as applicable) to ?establish procedures for the processing and counting of mail ballots." Section 22 of AB4 provides no guidance or guardrails of any kind for the establishment of ?procedures for the processing and counting of mail ballots.? Section 22 thus violates the ?specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.? Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 105?06 (2000). Further, Section 22 provides no ?minimal procedural safeguards? to protect against the ?unequal evaluation? of mail ballots. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 109 (2000). 130. Section 22 of AB4 instructs each county or city clerk that they ?may authorize mail ballots to be processed and counted by electronic means.? Nevada?s counties thus have the option of processing and counting mail ballots by either electronic means (of any kind, apparently) or manually. Section 22 thus expressly authorizes Nevada?s counties to ?use[] varying standards to determine what [i]s a legal vote,? contrary to the uniform standard clause. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 107 (2000). 133. Section 22 of AB4 thus violates the Equal Protection Clause. Nevada?s equal access clause section 10 Referring to the Supreme Court of Nevada ?interpreted the requirement of Section 21 of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution that ?all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State? to be coextensive with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;? ?The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. It must be remembered that the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by Wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.? Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000). In particular, the Equal Protection Clause imposes a ?minimum requirement for nonarbitrary treatment of voters? and forbids voting systems and practices that distribute election resources in ?standardless? fashion, without ?specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.? Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 105-06 (2000); League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463, 477?78 (6th Cir. 2008). The United States Supreme Court has instructed that the ?formulation of uniform rules? is ?necessary? because the ?want of? such rules may lead to ?unequal evaluation of ballots.? Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 106 (2000) Section 25 of AB4 provides that two or more mail ballots are found folded together to present the appearance of a single envelope,? and ?a majority of the inspectors are of the opinion that the mail ballots folded together were voted by one person, the mail ballots must be rejected.? ?25.2. 141. Section 25 provides no guidance or guardrails of any kind for the establishment of standards ?a majority of inspectors? should apply to determine whether ?the mail ballots folded together were voted by one person.? Section 25 thus violates the ?minimum requirement for non?arbitrary treatment of voters? by authorizing ?standardless? procedures for determining the validity of multiple ballots within a single envelope, without ?speci?c rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.? Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 105-06 (2000). Case Document 1 Filed 08/04/20 Page 22 of 25 Further, Section 25 provides no ?minimal procedural safeguards? to protect against the ?unequal evaluation? of multiple ballots within a single envelope. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 109 (2000). Section 25 of AB4 thus violates the Equal Protection Clause, Section 21 Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution, and the Equal access clause Nevada Constitution section 9. AB4, which upends Nevada?s election laws and requires massive changes in election procedures and processes, makes voter fraud and other ineligible voting inevitable. AB4 requires counties to accept and count ballots received after Election Day? including ballots that may have been mailed after Election Day. 20.2. It establishes a disparate number of in-person places for early voting and Election Day voting throughout Nevada based on a county?s population, resulting in fewer in-person voting places for rural voters. 1, 12. 1t fails to establish uniform statewide standards for processing and counting ballots, ?22, or for detemiining whether multiple ballots received in one envelope must be rejected, ?25. It also authorizes ballot harvesting. ?21. The combined effect of those problematic provisions is to dilute honest votes. Dilution of honest votes, to any degree, by the casting of fraudulent or illegitimate votes violates the right to vote. Reynolds, 377 US Filed. at 555; Anderson, 417 US at 226?27; Baker, 369 US. at 208. Case Document 1 08/04/20 Page 23 of 25. The aspects of AB4 identified above facilitate fraud and other illegitimate voting practices for the reasons described above. Those provisions thus dilute the value of honest, lawful votes and therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, Article 4 Section 21 of the Nevada Constitution . I NV SIRS Proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to guarantee equal rights. (BDR C-1278) Has been passed by the Legislature and is scheduled for passage by voters in the 2020 general election to be ratified into the Nevada State Constitution. If this amendment is ratified by the people, AB 4 will be in violation of the equal access Clause and the Voter?s Bill Of Rights in SIRS. I will suffer serious and irreparable harm to my constitutional rights unless the state is enjoined from implementing and enforcing AB4. 3. ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT NEVADA FINDINGS: MULTIPLE OR DUPLICATE VOTING AT VOTE CENTERS: Sections 11?14 of AB4 establish various requirements relating to polling places and voter registration for affected elections subject to sections 2?27, including requirements relating to: (1) polling places established for early voting by personal appearance; (2) polling places established as vote centers; 0 Vote centers remove the voter from his precinct where he is known and allows for impersonation especially when no ID is required and also allows for multiple voting by using sample ballots or ?found ballots? where nefarious voters travel from one vote center to another rather than appearing at the precinct where the voter is registered. This multiple voting is part of the ?findings? sent to the Secretary of State, Barbara Cegavske by Election Integrity Project Nevada (EIPNv.com) on July 24, 2020. Finding 8: Duplicated Voter Registrations Notwithstanding the legal obligations to eliminate duplicate names from the list, EIPNV has identi?ed 1,289 persons who appear to be registered twice in the state. Each occurrence has the same/similar name and same/similar birthdate at the same address or differing addresses in the state. This includes persons who appear to be registered under both maiden and married last names. Matching phone numbers provide additional evidence for suspected duplicates at differing addresses. Duplicated registrants can easily vote more than once undetected. Finding Suspected Double Voting There are 9 suspected duplicated registrants whose voting histories, if they are con?rmed as duplicates, show they voted twice in an election. Five appear to have voted twice in the June 2020 primary because they each had two Active registrations and were mailed two ballots. ?5 analysis ofpotential doubie voting Z2 counties which currently have incorrect voting histories for the June 2020 election. Finding 10: Registrants to be Mailed Two Ballots for November 2020 Should Nevada not correct the registrations it confirms as duplicated, as many as 1,226 registrants will be mailed two ballots for the November 2020 election. This includes 849 who each appear to have two Active registrations and 377 additional registrants in Clark County who have one or both registrations as Inactive status, should Clark County include Inactives in its mailed ballot plans. Persons sent more than one ballot can easily vote more than once undetected. Voter impersonation is also more likely when one voter can travel from vote center to vote center impersonating someone with an active but not voting in several years status. Finding Delayed Inactivations has identi?ed 41,040 Nevada registrant whose records no indications of registration updates or federal voting activity since November 2, 2010 or prior. Since these registrants have likely relocated or died, they may be eligible for inactivation or cancellation yet they remain in ?Active? status. Voting histories indicate 3,331 have not voted in 16 or more years and 22,151 have records indicating they have NEVER voted since registering to vote a decade or more ago. Clark County has 38,103 of the potential delayed inactivations, more than 3% of its Active registrations. Finding ?Delayed lnactivations? to be Mailed Ballots for November 2020 Should Nevada mail ballots to all Active-status registrants for the November 2020 election, as many as 41,050-- who may instead be eligible for inactivation or cancellation?will be mailed ballots, including 38,103 in Clark County. Finding Delayed Cancellations There are 18,290 registrants who were previously inactivated by a county or the state yet remain on the voter list despite no indications of registration updates or voting activity since November 2, 2010 or prior. These registrations may be eligible for cancellation under federal law and Nevada state law 293.530]. 9,049 have records indicating they have NEVER voted since registering to vote a decade or more ago. Clark County has 14,327 of the suspected delayed cancellations and Washoe County has 1,673. For this ?nding assumes that (quoting from your May 29, 2020 press release) order for a registered voter to be designated as inactive, a piece of election mail sent to the voter must have been returned as undeliverable and the voter must have failed to reSpond to a mailer asking the voter to con?rm their voter registration information. and that ..If an inactive registered voter fails to vote in two federal election cycles four years) and the inactive registered voter has no other voter activity during this time, their voter registration in Nevada is cancelled.? Finding ?Delayed Cancellations? to be Mailed Ballots for November 2020 Should Clark County mail ballots to all Inactive-status registrants for the November 2020 election, as it did for the June 2020 primary, as many as 14,327 registrants-- who may instead be eligible for cancellation?will be mailed ballots. SAME DAY VOTER REGISTRATION: AB4 Sections 1 l-l4 (3) voter registration at polling places on election day Same day registration is problematic because there is no time to authenticate the voter against residence, citizenship, or deceased rolls. If peOple who reside somewhere else, are not citizens or are dead are voting, my vote is diluted which violates the law and injures my Constitutional rights. The only remedy is not to implement this law. Finding Registrants Aged 105 or Older and Likely Deceased Notwithstanding the legal requirement to maintain voter registration lists that are free of dead registrants, there are 74 registrants whose birthdates indicate they are 105+ years old and likely deceased. Finding Registrants Aged 105+ to be Mailed Ballots for November 2020 Should Nevada mail ballots to all Active registrants for the November 2020 election, 63 registrants aged 105+ and likely deceased will be mailed ballots. This includes 40 of Active status and 23 additional Inactive status registrants aged 105+ should Clark County mail ballots to Inactive registrants as it did for the June 2020 primary. 5. SIGNATURE VERIFICATION NOT REQUIRED. AB4 Sections 23, 39 and 69 revise these existing procedures and set forth standards for determining when there is a reasonable question of fact as to whether the signature used for an absent ballot, mailing ballot or mail ballot matches the signature of the voter. - This is a new requirement that will add extra work to the registrar and may get them to accept signatures they would otherwise reject because of this added work load. Here are the things that can't be used to disqualify the signature in the new bill: 2. or pzn'poses of There is a reasonable question of fact as to whether the signature used for the mail ballot matches the signature of the voter ifthe signature usedfor the mail ballot di?ers in multiple, significant and obvious respects?orn the signatures of the voter available in the records of the clerk. There is not a reasonable question offaet as to whether the signature usedfor the mail ballot matches the signature ofthe voter it"(l) The signature used for the mail ballot is a variation of the signature ofthe voter caused by the substitution ofinitialsfor the first or middle name or the use of a common nickname and it does not otherwise di?er in mulliple, signi?cant and obvious respects from the signatures ofrhe voter available in the records ofthe clerk; or I I have to prove at the DMV the married name is the same as my birth certi?cate which only contains my maiden name. How can any variation on the legal name or signature be acceptable? This is an opportunity for multiple ballots to a voter under the legal name, another under the initials, another under the nickname etc. (2) There are only slight clissimilarities between {he signalnre usedfor (he mail ballot and the signatures ofthe voter available in the records of the clerk.) This is relative. How are slight or dissimilarities de?ned? With these provisions in place all signatures WOULD be acceptable thus nullifying the need for a signature. Finding Missing Information There are 1,657 registrants who are missing a birthdate, appear to be missing a legal name, or have a non-alpha character in their names. The Nevada voter registration af?davit requires registrants to list their names as they appear on their Nevada driver license, state ID card or Social Security card, but a majority of the 1,657 have what appear to be ?nickname? initials in place of their legal first names. Such missing information hinders the state?s ability to confirm these registrants? eligibility and to match with death, NCOA and other records required for list maintenance. If a person?s signature does not have to be official or legal then there is more possibility of voter impersonation and multiple voting under different signatures. My vote is diluted which violates the law and injures my Constitutional rights. The only remedy is not to implement this law. 6. OPENING MAIL-IN BALLOTS AND COUNTING THEM 15 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION: Sections 22-27this bill revise these existing procedures and provide that such counting boards can begin their process of counting the returned absent ballots, mailing ballots and mail ballots 15 days before the election. The separation of the ballot from the signature enveIOpe keeps the ballot from being removed from the count if the signature or the person who cast the ballot is challenged. These challenges must take place at the time the ballot is received requiring overseers of the counting process to be in attendance for 11 more days than the existing law. When a court ?nds that ineligible votes have been cast if the ballot is not in tact there is no way to remove those ineligible votes from the system. The court determination is, ?yes there was fraud and the election is corrupted but we don?t know who the corrupted ballots voted for.? The lengthening of time for counting impairs oversight inviting possible corruption. This would allow the vote to be counted and the information released prior to election day causing people to react results by not casting a vote if their candidate appeared to be losing. When illegal votes are counted my vote is diluted. Dilution of my vote is a violation of the law and the Constitution. 7. AGE DISCRIMINATION: AB4 sections 15-27 establish certain election procedures for the mail ballots distributed to active registered voters for affected elections subject to sections 2?27. Because these particular election procedures relating to absent ballots, mailing ballots and mail ballots serve similar purposes, sections 15-83 make conforming changes in order to align all the provisions and make them uniform in their operation for Nevada?s elections. Under existing law, at the request of a voter who has a physical disability or is at least 65 years of age or under certain other circumstances, a person may mark and sign an absent ballot on behalf of the voter or assist voter to mark and sign the absent ballot if the person complies with certain requirements. (NRS 293.316, 293.3165, 293C317, 293C318) Sections I9, 28, 29, 35, 56,57 and 65 ofthis bill provide that at the request of a voter who has a physical disability, is at least 65 years of age or is unable to read or write . Sections 21this bill: (I) allow a voter to authorize any person to return an absent ballot, mailing ballot or mail ballot to the county or city clerk 011 behalf of the voter; This request should be made in writing to the registrar who should send a deputy to assist since this is a form of ballot harvesting which if done by campaign workers can be interpreted as electioneering. Coercion of vulnerable voters is also a possibility. Since age is noted on the registration rolls, those older voters may be targeted by ballot harvesters who at least may be electioneering and at worst be casting the vote for that person or impersonating their vote. One of the tests for citizenship is literacy. Assistance must be done by a trusted and impartial deputy of the election board. Since this is a form of ballot harvesting a practice proven to be fraught with fraudulent opportunity for hired ?boletera? for example. This would create an atmosphere for a trunk full of ballots to come in after the election. ?About 6,700 ballots were not counted in this month?s Nevada the primary election after officials could not match signatures on the ballots, according to the Nevada Secretary of State?s Office.? 74f922747ble6d03b5cc39f41 Since I am over 65 this means that I may be targeted by ballot harvesters which is a form of harassment and discrimination. My right to privacy and equal protection are violated. To remedy this injury, this law should be enjoined from implementing and enforcing AB4. 8. UNABLE TO DETERMINE lF BALLOT IS CAST ON TIME: AB4 Sections 20, 37 and 67 of this bill provide that to be timely returned by mail, an absent ballot, mailing ballot or mail ballot must be postmarked on or before the day of the election and received by the county or city clerk not later than 5 pm. on the seventh day following the election Sections 20, 37 and 67 also provide that if the county or city clerk is unable to determine the date of the postmark on such a ballot, but the ballot is received by the clerk not later than 5 pm. on the third day following the election, the ballot is deemed to have been postmarked on or before the day of the election 0 This extends the length of the election and allows nefarious opportunity to ?find? more ballots. Once again this makes the Election Day arbitrary and underlines the failings of the postal service making the mail?in ballot less secure. It will be impossible to know with the extension to seven days past the election for allowing ballots to be accepted, if those ballots were marked before the election or after the results were announced. It gives opportunity to ?find? more ballots if someone wants to change the election results. According to a OIA request made by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, ?Of the 1,325,934 ballots mailed out in Clark, 223,469 were returned as undeliverable. About 305,000 were returned by voters, verified and counted by the county. About 58 percent of the undeliverable ballots belonged to inactive voters those who have failed to con?rm their address with the county but remain registered. Inactive voters are removed from the rolls entirely if they miss two consecutive federal However, 93,585 undeliverable ballots belonged to voters classi?ed as active in Clark County?s voter rolls. Public Interest also audited the Clark County and Nevada state voter rolls and found that 2,358 people on the state?s active rolls were deceased. More than 2,200 of these came from Clark County.? 2095001/ ?The foundation reported that based on its study, Clark County mailed 1,325,934 ballots to voters. Of that number, 223,469 were returned as undeliverable. In Washoe County, 291,434 ballots were mailed, and 27,640 were returned.? ?Thousands of ba_llo_ts have been sent out by the Clark County Election Department to inactive voters those who have not voted in recent elections, a roster that can include people who either have moved or are deceased and the envelopes are piling up in post office trays, outside apartment complexes and on community bulletin boards in and around Las Vegas.? 0 Finding Suspected Double Voting There are 9 suspected duplicated registrants whose voting histories, if they are confirmed as duplicates, show they voted twice in an election. Five appear to have voted twice in the June 2020 primary because they each had two Active registrations and were mailed two ballots. analysis ofpolenlial double voting excluded [2 counties which currently have incorrect voting histories for the June 2020 election. 0 Finding 10: Registrants to be Mailed Two Ballots for November 2020 Should Nevada not correct the registrations it con?rms as duplicated, as many as 1,226 registrants will be mailed two ballots for the November 2020 election. This includes 849 who each appear to have two Active registrations and 377 additional registrants in Clark County who have one or both registrations as Inactive status, should Clark County include Inactives in its mailed ballot plans. Persons sent more than one ballot can easily vote more than once undetected. Just by doing the math, 1,325,934 ballots mailed out in Clark, 223,469 were returned as undeliverable, 305,000 were returned by voters, veri?ed and counted by the county there are still over 500,000 ballots that are unaccounted for in the primary election. It is reported that those ballots were ?piling up in post office trays, outside apartment complexes and on community bulletin boards in and around Las Vegas? ripe for using to sway an election if the same processes are followed and the safeguards of the ?old? law are abandoned for implementation of AB4. Additionally, the ?ndings show that 5 voters who have voted twice in the past also voted twice in the 2020 primary making them part of the 305,000 ?veri?ed and counted? ballots. If 5 slipped through an voted diluting the vote of legal voters, in the preliminary ?ndings of for registrations from 2010 or before, how many more duplicate voters actually voted if we looked at the registrations from 2010 to 2018'? The presence of the documented fraudulent vote of 5 voters is evidence that the vote in Nevada is not secure, fair or honest. It also proves that the provisions of AB4 will only exacerbate the problem. Since my vote was diluted in the June 2020 primary election by this fraud, the only remedy for this injury is AB4 should be enjoined from implementing and enforcing AB4. I understand from information gained from a call to the Secretary of State?s office that the mail in ballots have already gone to the printer, and thus an immediate preliminary injunction must be issued in order to halt the carrying out of the mandates of AB4. If AB4 is implemented the plaintiffs will incur irreparable injury due to the numerous violations of the law and of their rights of equal protection as guaranteed under the Nevada Constitution. I swear before God and under penalty of perjury, that the statements I have made in this affidavit are true. - . I: 321.? KR (gr?t (Egg Sharron Angle, Nevada Voter and Citizen EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 2 Washoe County?s costs alone to carry out-Assembly Bill 4 Are set forth below: Postage Permit 539 (non pro?t)- Sample Ballot $60,000.00 Postage Permit 215 (First Class)? Election Ballolt $220,000.00 Mail Ballot envelopes(outgoing returning) domestic/overseas instructions sec recy sieves 1,373,850 pieces $110,340.61 Mail in Ballots/Counter Ballots/packet assembly/delivery/subsequent extracts/freight 314,563-printed 294,161 ~mailed $168,411.83 Sample Ballot 304,200 0.196 $60,378.20 Metro Shipping $755.00 Moving Company $25,000.00 delivery drop off sites additional 2 $17,500 Dominion ICC ballot scanners Secure Mail Ballot DrOp Boxes $25,000.00 Mail scanner/sorter of return ballots 1 $250,000.00 have quotes from a few vendors Personal Protective Equipment for of?ce staff and election workers $110,000.00 Absent Ballot Elections workers Early Voting $69,300.00 $11 per hour 4 additional EV workers per site $66,528.00 $11 per hour 4 additional ED workers per site $11,000.00 $110 for all day 7 am 7 pm Total unfunded costs of AB4 $1,193,458.64 See EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 3 1A. Rights of voters. [Proposed new section] Each voter who is a quali?ed elector under this Constitution and is registered to vote in accordance with Section 6 of this Article and the laws enacted by the Legislature pursuant thereto has the right: 1. To receive and cast a ballot that: Is written in a format that allows the clear identi?cation of candidates; and Accurately records the voter?s preference in the selection of candidates. 2. To have questions concerning voting procedures answered and to have an explanation of the procedures for voting posted in a conspicuous place at the polling place. 3. To vote without being intimidated, threatened or coerced. 4. To vote during any period for early voting or on election day if the voter is waiting in line at a polling place at which, by law, the voter is entitled to vote at the time that the polls close and the voter has not already cast a vote in that election. 5. To return a spoiled ballot and receive another ballot in its place. 6. To request assistance in voting, if necessary. 7. To a sample ballot which is accurate, informative and delivered in a timely manner as provided by law. 8. To receive instruction in the use of the equipment for voting during any period for early voting or on election day. 9. To equal access to the elections system without discrimination, including, without limitation, discrimination on the basis of race, age, disability, military service, employment or overseas residence. 10. To a uniform, statewide standard for counting and recounting all votes accurately as provided by law. 11. To have complaints about elections and election contests resolved fairly, accurately and efficiently as provided by law. Editor's Notes This new section was proposed and passed in Statutes of Nevada 2017 and agreed to and passed by the 2019 Legislature, to take effect November 24, 2020, if the proposed amendment is rati?ed at the 2020 General Election.