Filed Date: May 11, 2020
Closed Date: May 26, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit challenged a statutory deadline for gathering signatures on a petition for the recall of an elected official during the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 11, 2020, a committee established for the purpose of recalling Nevada's Governor Steve Sisolak filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against the Nevada Secretary of State in her official capacity, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The committee, represented by a private law firm, sought declaratory judgment and permanent, preliminary, and emergency injunctive relief to prevent the Nevada Secretary of State from enforcing a state law setting the deadline for petitions to recall a public officer. The case was assigned to Judge Richard Boulware II.
The plaintiffs argued that the normal statutory deadline for obtaining the requisite number of signatures to trigger a recall election of a public officer should be extended given the hardship imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and Governor Sisolak’s ensuing emergency directives. Under NRS 306.105, a group wishing to trigger a special recall election of a public official must obtain the signatures of 25% of the “registered voters who voted in the State . . . at the general election at which the public officer was elected.” Here, the committee needed to acquire approximately 249,500 signatures in order to successfully petition for a recall election.
After the committee filed the required notice of intent with the Secretary of State, the state statute provided 90 days for the committee to obtain the appropriate signatures for the petition, with one required check-in with the Secretary at the halfway mark. The committee filed its notice of intent on February 14, 2020 and provided the Secretary an updated list of signatures on March 30, 2020, thus complying with the midpoint check-in requirement. However, at that midpoint, it had only obtained about 6.5% of the required signatures, with the deadline of May 14, 2020 fast approaching.
In the meantime, Governor Sisolak issued emergency directives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, which included shutting down non-essential businesses and ordering individuals to refrain from leaving their residences except for essential purposes. Given these directives, the plaintiffs argued that they could not comply with the May 14, 2020 deadline and sought to prevent the Secretary from enforcing it, alleging that the Secretary’s denial to extend the deadline violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of political association, equal protection, and due process. The Secretary had declined to extend the deadline, stating that it was not within her legal authority to do so. The committee also filed a Temporary Restraining Order asking the court to grant an extension of the filing deadline by an amount of time equal to the duration of Governor Sisolak’s emergency directives.
Four days later, Judge Richard F. Boulware denied the plaintiffs' request for a TRO, holding that they could not establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their First and Fourteenth Amendment claims and had not established irreparable injury. 460 F.Supp.3d 1049. The bulk of the court’s analysis focused on the First Amendment ballot-access issue. The court acknowledged a federally protected right to vote and associate for political purposes, but found that the committee had not adequately demonstrated that such federally protected rights extend to the filing of recall petitions. The plaintiffs “appear[ed] to be conflating the right to submit a recall petition with the right to vote in the special election that follows it.”
Additionally, the court held that even if the committee had raised a valid First Amendment ballot-access claim, the election regulations at issue would only require rational basis review, not strict scrutiny. The plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to demonstrate a severe burden on any First Amendment right. As the plaintiffs acknowledged, nothing prevented them from filing another notice of intent and filing another petition if the deadline for the petition at issue lapsed. Although the court acknowledged that restarting the process could impose some burden on the committee, the committee itself did not set forth facts establishing the extent of any additional expense or time. Given the slim likelihood of success on the merits, the court denied the motion for a TRO.
On May 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The court subsequently terminated the case.
Summary Authors
Zoe Goldstein (1/31/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17145806/parties/fight-for-nevada-v-cegavske/
Boulware, Richard Franklin II (Nevada)
Youchah, Elayna J (Nevada)
Barnes, Robert E (California)
Jaeger, Jeffrey (Nevada)
Zunino, Gregory Louis (Nevada)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17145806/fight-for-nevada-v-cegavske/
Last updated April 23, 2025, 10:58 a.m.
State / Territory: Nevada
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 11, 2020
Closing Date: May 26, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A committee for the recall of the election of Governor Sisolak
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Voting: