IN THE SUI?REME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FRED KRAUS, AN INDIVIDUAL
REGISTERED TO VOTE IN CLARK
COUNTY, NEVADA; DONALD J.
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.; AND
NEVADA REPUBLICAN PARTY,
Appellants,
vs.
:BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS NEVADA
SECRETARY OF STATE; JOSEPH P.
GLORIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS REGISTRAR OF VOTERS FOR
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA;
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE; AND NEVADA STATE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
Respondents.

No. 82018

FILE
NOV O 3 2020
A. 6P.OWN
UPREVE COUR
DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION FOR STAY AND TO EXPEDITE APPEAL
This appeal challenges a district court order denying a petition
for a writ of mandamus or prohibition in an election matter.
Appellants have filed an emergency motion seeking immediate
relief under NRAP 8, pending appeal, prohibiting the Clark County
Registrar from continuing to duplicate mail ballots unless observers are
granted an opportunity to meaningfully observe the process and from using
artificial intelligence to authenticate ballot signatures. Appellants also
seek to expedite this appeal.
As this matter involves the election process currently
underway, we conclude that it should be expedited. Therefore, we grant the
motion as to the request to expedite. Appellants shall have until tomorrow
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA

fth 1947A .45ZW4

 at 4 p.m. to file and serve their transcript request form or certificate that no
transcript will be requested. NRAP 9(a). Appellants shall have until 4 p.m.
on Thursday, November 5, 2020, to file and serve the docketing statement,
opening brief, and appendices. Respondents answering brief shall be due
on or before 4 p.m. on Monday, November 9, 2020. No extensions of time
will be granted.'
We have also considered appellants' request that we enjoin the
registrar from duplicating ballots and using artificial intelligence to
authenticate ballots. Under NRAP 8(c), in determining whether to grant a
stay or injunction pending appeal, we look to whether the object of the
appeal will be defeated absent a stay or injunction whether the granting or
denying of a stay or injunction will result in irreparable or serious injury to
appellants and respondents. and whether appellants have demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits.

•

Although some portions of the appeal may be defeated. absent
immediate relief, appellants have not demonstrated that the entire appeal
will be defeated, and due to the urgent nature of the matter. we have
granted their request to expedite. Moreover, appellants have not
demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success to merit a stay or injunction.
The district court concluded that appellants' allegations lacked evidentiary
support, and their request for relief to this court is not supported by

'For purposes of this order, we suspend the provisions of NRAP
25(a)(2)(B)(ii), (iii), and (iv), which provide that a document is- timely filed
if, on or before its due date, it is mailed to this court, dispatched for delivery
by a third party commercial carrier, or deposited in the Supreme Court drop
box. See NRAP 2. Accordingly, all docurnents shall be filed personally or
by facsimile or electronic transmission with the clerk of this court in Carson
City.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(01 1V47A

•Aleto

2

 affidavit or record inaterials supporting many of the factual statements
It is unclear from the motion how

made therein. See NRAP 8(2)(B)(ii),

appellants are being prevented from observing the process or . that the use
of the Agilis machine is prohibited under AB 4. As the district court's order
points out, mandamus relief is warranted only to compel performance of a
mandatory statutory duty or to remedy a manifest abuse of discretion.
Round Hill General Improvement Dist. v. Newman., 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637
P.2d 534, 536 (1981). Appellants motion, on its face, does not identify any
mandatory statutory duty that respondents appear to have ignored.
Further, appellants fail to address the district court's conclusion that they
lack standing to pursue this relief. Thus, appellants have not shown that
the NRAP 8(c) factors militate in favor of a stay or injunction, and the
request for immediate relief is denied.
It is so ORDERED.

, C.d.
Pickering

Hardesty

Stiglich

Parraguirre

,
Silver

Cadisb

3

 cc:

Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
Hon. Jarnes E. Wilson, District Judge
Marquis Aurbach Coifing
O'Mara Law Firm, P.C.
Harvey & Binnall, PLLC
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Carson City
Perkins Coie, LLP/Washington DC
Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division
Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

4
tOI I947A