The Nevada Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on the Voters’ Right to Verify Their Vote is Counted

The Nevada Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on the Voters’ Right to Verify Their Vote is Counted

Update on Nevada Supreme Court Case 93319

Voters across the country are denied by design the right to verify the only ballot that matters: the ballot that actually gets counted. In electronic tabulation your votes are computed from an electronic “version” of your ballot, a version you are never allowed to see. If you cannot see it, you cannot verify it before it’s counted.

This matters immensely because the explicit design of electronic tabulation completely rejects voter oversight of what goes into the count. The count determines results, and the design of electronic tabulation denies any and all voters the opportunity to personally confirm that their votes are exactly what is being counted. Rather, you are forced to assume it. Federal law, so we are told, is there to “help” Americans “feel confident” that their votes are counted accurately. But this is not so. Besides the fact that those who are not Americans are routinely voting, Americans are forbidden the opportunity to ensure that their votes–which are their commands–are in fact obeyed

A hand-counted paper process can help make the problem with electronic tabulation controlling the counting of the votes even clearer: in a hand count, the very paper voted on is the very paper counted. In that process, the voter can see that the paper they cast is exactly the same as what is read into the count. This cannot happen in electronic tabulation. Even if paper ballots are used in your state–and this includes mailed ballots–the paper only supplies a later scan. After the paper is surrendered and the scan is finished, we are forced to assume that accurate data is generated, if any relevant data at all, to supply the count and reveal the results.

Yet federal law (the Help America Vote Act, HAVA) commands that voters be able to verify their ballot before it is counted.

Electronic tabulation prevents that verification: because between the casting and counting of your ballot it injects the creation of an electronic version of your ballot. You can only assume your vote is counted because the design forbids you to see the thing that gets counted, if it gets counted at all let alone counted accurately. This injection of the unseen ballot makes any verification performed on the paper irrelevant and meaningless. But it is not harmless. Without verification, voters are denied oversight. Without oversight, we are made mere spectators in a theater of elections only, a theater built and maintained by tyrants. Sound familiar?

What then is the value of “verifying” a ballot that is not counted? It has no value to the voter. It does have great value to our enemies, both foreign and domestic. That value is the maintenance of the illusion of integrity in our elections, making them nothing more than a massive con job, until We the People choose to demand otherwise. We are living in the time of the Great Election Illusion. Americans are being entertained by election theater while America’s foundation is burning. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

In the June 2026 Primary, I asked to verify that the scanner got it right. I was denied, and so I sued. Nevada law says that voters must be allowed to verify and correct their choices before a ballot is “cast and counted.” The question is therefore simple: does checking the paper that does exist and does not get counted verify an electronic record the voter must assume exists and must assume gets counted? The answer is no.

It is impossible to verify something unseen and before it even exists! But eight judges in black robes have determined that you do not have the right to even see a ballot that actually gets counted. Voter oversight has been declared dead by a judiciary that seems to prefer tyranny.

On October 15, all seven justices of the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment against me in the lower court. The Court called the law’s requirement—that election systems allow voters to verify their votes before ballots are “cast and counted”—a “term of art.” In effect, it rewrote the law to excuse the ruling that denies voters the verification right the statute mandates. Unable to explain how it is possible for a voter to verify a ballot they have never seen–because it is not possible, the panel of seven judges decided to reduce the law instead of reading the law and let it speak its command. They silenced the law so they did not have to hear the law.

But wait, there’s more! They silenced the law and they also silenced me. They took the words they seem not to want to hear and replaced them with the words they did. My words were precise: I want to verify the one record that gets counted. The Nevada Supreme Court (The Censoring Seven) took them and turned them into “he wants to have a second look on a record inside the machine.” The difference is subtle but consequential. I asked for one look, a look at the record that is counted, as the law says I can. That claim they did not defeat, and they changed what I asked into this: a second look–a look the law says nothing about. Doing this gave them an argument they could win. They moved the goalposts to create the conditions and claims they could defeat. It’s peevish and childish, unbecoming of those with power.

The Censoring Seven not only rewrote the law and legislated from their bench, but they also reasoned backward to reach their absurd conclusions. The law that commands voter verification is to define what the election process must include. The law is supposed to control the kinds of options the State would choose, rejecting systems that do not allow voter verification of the record that gets counted. The law is to restrain the extent of the election system, not the other way around.

But here they reversed the order and went backward, telling the law what it should say because the permitted system would not be changed. They argued that the electronic record is created and counted so fast that it was unreasonable to ask to see it. The request would cause a delay the system could not tolerate. But that is exactly backward, making the permitted election system govern the extent of the mandate of law. If the system operates so a voter cannot see it then that system is what is unreasonable, not the voter’s request. (But remember, the claim was not asking to see inside the machine as a second look. It was to see and verify the record that gets counted. This matters because the command to let the voter verify is supreme to the statute that gives permission to use electronic counting.) They treated the statute’s permission to use electronic tabulation as the preeminent measure for what the law would be allowed to say, going so far as to erase language from the law from their bench so it would no longer have a voice. The effect of censoring that voice is to silence ours.

On October 16, a Petition for Rehearing was filed asking the Court to reconsider its ruling: a “term of art” label cannot erase law, and the equipment’s design cannot mute the law that governs it.

The petition also places a federal question before the Censoring Seven: Does the Help America Vote Act permit a voter to verify paper that is only scanned and not counted, when a different electronic record, never seen or corrected by the voter, is counted?

If the Nevada Supreme Court’s final decision resolves the meaning of federal law, I may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review it through a petition for certiorari. Federal law allows the Court to review qualifying final decisions from a state’s highest court when a federal statute is at issue. This petition preserves only a possible path to that review. It does not guarantee the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case.

The fight goes on, and your vote is our weapon!

The post The Nevada Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on the Voters’ Right to Verify Their Vote is Counted appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.