Lead
The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a lower-court dismissal and ordered the prosecution of six Nevada Republicans accused of submitting a false 2020 electoral certificate to return to Clark County. The move keeps criminal allegations tied to the 2020 presidential contest alive in a county that includes Las Vegas and leans Democratic. Prosecutors say the six signed a certificate purporting to award Nevada’s six electoral votes to Donald Trump after Joe Biden carried the state by more than 30,000 votes. The decision marks a win for state-level efforts to pursue so-called “fake electors.”
Key Takeaways
- Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reversed a district court ruling, allowing the case to proceed in Clark County.
- Six Nevada Republicans are charged related to a certificate that assigned Nevada’s six 2020 electoral votes to Donald Trump.
- Joe Biden won Nevada in 2020 by more than 30,000 votes; the electors gathered publicly and the ceremony was recorded.
- One elector mailed documents from Douglas County to federal officials in Washington, D.C., and copies were sent to state officials in Carson City and to a federal judge in Las Vegas.
- The defendants pleaded not guilty and have characterized the prosecution as political; they say they were exercising First Amendment speech.
- Prosecutor Aaron Ford argued venue is proper in Clark County because relevant material was routed to Las Vegas; the court rejected the venue-only dismissal.
- Similar prosecutions in other battleground states have had mixed results: Michigan saw a judge dismiss 15 charges, and Arizona’s case was returned to a grand jury for additional direction.
- As a precaution, the attorney general filed a Carson City case in December 2024 charging “uttering a forged instrument,” which may be withdrawn now that the Supreme Court ruling clears Clark County.
Background
The dispute stems from an event after the 2020 election in which six Nevada electors assembled outside the state Legislature and signed a certificate saying Trump won Nevada’s six electoral votes. That certificate contradicted certified statewide results showing Joe Biden ahead by over 30,000 votes. The gathering was livestreamed and the recording has been used as evidence by prosecutors.
State prosecutors charged the six Nevadan defendants in a yearslong inquiry tied to broader national efforts to contest the 2020 outcome. Clark County, which contains Las Vegas, is a focal point because some of the challenged documents were sent or received there. A state judge had earlier dismissed the case on venue grounds, concluding the alleged criminal acts occurred elsewhere in Nevada, so the attorney general appealed.
Main Event
On Thursday the Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the district court’s dismissal and ordered the matter returned to Clark County for further proceedings. The high court concluded that Nevada law does not bar venue in multiple counties for the same offense, allowing prosecutors to pursue charges where actions or consequences occurred across county lines.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, whose office brought the prosecution, said the decision affirms Clark County as a lawful venue. Ford has maintained the envelope containing the certificate was sent to Las Vegas, which supports trying the case there. As a precaution while the appeal proceeded, Ford filed a separate criminal count in Carson City in December 2024 to protect against a statute-of-limitations bar.
The defendants include Michael McDonald, former chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, and Jesse Law, the erstwhile head of the Clark County Republican Party who lost a July primary. All six defendants pleaded not guilty and have argued the case amounts to political targeting rather than legitimate criminal conduct.
Prosecutors point to the mailing and the public signing ceremony as key acts connecting multiple Nevada locations to the alleged scheme. One elector mailed the certificate from Douglas County to federal officials in Washington, D.C., while copies also reached the Nevada secretary of state in Carson City and a federal judge in Las Vegas, creating the factual basis for venue arguments.
Analysis & Implications
The Nevada Supreme Court ruling narrows defense efforts to have the case dismissed early on procedural grounds and returns the focus to the substantive allegations. By allowing venue in Clark County, the opinion increases the likelihood the defendants will face a jury in an urban, Democratic-leaning district rather than a more conservative venue where prosecutors argued the envelope originated.
Legally, the decision underscores that criminal acts with multi-jurisdictional effects can justify prosecutions in any county where part of the offense produced consequences. That doctrine matters for election-related prosecutions because steps in an alleged scheme often cross county and state lines: meetings, mailings and electronic transmissions can create multiple loci of impact.
Politically, the ruling will draw renewed attention in Nevada and among national observers tracking 2020-related accountability efforts. For the attorney general — Aaron Ford, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026 — the result is both a legal victory and a potential political flashpoint the next time he campaigns.
But the path ahead remains uncertain. The state must still prove criminal elements beyond reasonable doubt, and other courts around the country have issued different outcomes in similar matters, producing an uneven patchwork of rulings that may ultimately draw appellate scrutiny or federal questions about the intersection of state criminal law and federal election procedures.
Comparison & Data
| State | Charged | Recent Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Nevada | 6 | Supreme Court returned case to Clark County |
| Michigan | 15 | Judge dismissed charges |
| Arizona | Various | Sent back to grand jury for fuller instruction |
| Georgia | Criminal cases filed | Proceeding in state courts |
The table places Nevada’s development alongside other battleground-state actions. While Nevada’s high court kept the case alive in a populous county, Michigan’s dismissal and Arizona’s grand-jury remand show divergent judicial treatments of similar facts. These differences could shape where prosecutions succeed or fail and whether consistent legal standards emerge through appeals.
Reactions & Quotes
Officials and participants reacted quickly after the high court issued its opinion, framing the outcome in partisan and legal terms while declining to provide more detailed on-the-record commentary in some quarters.
The attorney general’s office said the ruling confirms Clark County was a lawful venue for prosecution and praised the court for overturning the lower-court dismissal.
Nevada Attorney General’s office (official statement)
Defense representatives have labeled the case political and reiterated constitutional defenses; electors themselves declined to comment publicly on the court’s decision the day it was released.
Defense counsel described the charges as politically motivated and emphasized First Amendment arguments that the defendants were exercising free speech in criticizing Nevada’s election processes.
Defense representatives (public statement)
Legal observers noted the decision highlights venue doctrine and could affect how prosecutors pursue multi-county conduct connected to election contests nationwide.
Scholars of election law said the ruling illustrates the challenges judges face in allocating venue when actions and their effects span multiple counties, and that it may influence prosecutorial strategy elsewhere.
Election law scholar (analysis)
Unconfirmed
- Whether the Carson City “uttering a forged instrument” charge will be formally withdrawn now that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of venue in Clark County.
- Precise routing details of the mailed envelope and whether it was redirected to a judge’s chambers in Reno remain contested in court filings.
- How appellate courts might later rule if convictions are secured is not determined and would depend on legal arguments yet to be made at trial.
Bottom Line
The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision keeps the six-defendant case tied to the contested 2020 electors episode alive in Clark County, denying the defense an early procedural victory based on venue. That outcome increases the immediate likelihood of a jury trial in a populous, Democratic-leaning county and shifts the dispute back to factual and legal merits rather than jurisdictional technicalities.
While the ruling does not decide guilt or innocence, it is a significant procedural win for prosecutors and part of a patchwork of state-level outcomes that have produced inconsistent results across battleground states. Observers should watch for whether Nevada’s case proceeds to trial, whether other states’ differing judicial rulings prompt broader appeals, and how venue and interstate mailing facts are litigated at trial.
Sources
- AP News (national news outlet reporting on court opinion and statements)