Nevada committee hears AB 534 to require faster mail‑ballot processing, create voter access grant program

The Nevada Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections heard testimony on Assembly Bill 534 on Oct. 12, 2025, a measure from Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar’s office that would require election officials in the state’s largest counties to begin processing mail ballots within 24 hours of receipt and create a voter access grant program administered by the Secretary of State.

Chief Deputy Secretary of State Gabriel De Cara, speaking for Secretary Aguilar, told the committee the bill’s 24‑hour processing requirement is paired with a waiver mechanism so counties that cannot meet the deadline can request relief. “We have a duty and obligation to our voters to ensure that ballots are processed and ready to be tabulated in a timely manner, speeding up election results,” De Cara said, adding the office will work with counties on a regulatory waiver process.

The nut graf: supporters said the measure aims to boost transparency and standardize timelines for petitions and candidate processes; opponents warned the bill could overreach into county election administration and create opportunities for outside influence through the new grant program.

Supporters and neutral witnesses described operational constraints that complicate meeting a 24‑hour requirement. Ashley Kennedy, Clark County government affairs, said Clark County saw historic turnout in 2024 with more than 1,000,000 ballots cast and roughly 43 percent (about 443,000) returned by mail. Clark invested about $1,900,000 to expand capacity, Kennedy said, and cited a processing rate of roughly 11 staff‑hours per 10,000 mail ballots; Clark’s reported maximum daily processing capacity is about 50,000 mail ballots. She warned that current statute prohibits beginning mail‑ballot counting until 15 days before election day while early voting begins 17 days before, and that legal limits make a 24‑hour start requirement difficult without statutory change or guaranteed waivers.

Washoe County government affairs liaison Cadence Matevich said Washoe is neutral but expects similar operational and space constraints that could force double shifts and additional costs to meet a 24‑hour standard. Both counties welcomed the proposed waiver process and said they would participate in drafting regulations.

Opponents pressed two themes: the scope of the Secretary of State’s new grant authority and changes to challenge and ballot terminology. Multiple speakers — including Janine Hanson (Independent American Party), Joshua Skaggs (Nevada Republican Party), Lynn Chapman (Nevada Families for Freedom) and others — said sections labeled 69.4 and 69.6 would let the Secretary of State accept unspecified gifts, grants and donations and distribute them via a “Voter Access Grant Program.” Critics said the statutory language appears broad and could create a “pot of money” subject to partisan influence unless accompanied by donor disclosure, auditing and restrictions; several witnesses urged tighter definitions of eligible uses and reporting.

Other opposition focused on proposed changes to the standard for submitting voter‑registration challenges. Iris Stone testified the bill’s proposed definition of “personal knowledge” for challenger affidavits is overly strict and could bar legitimate challenges unless the statute also permits corroborating documentary evidence (for example, US Postal Service change‑of‑address records or DMV updates).

Public commenters and one neutral witness also raised audit and records‑retention issues. Janette Dean urged expanded, targeted post‑election audits and longer ballot‑retention periods than the bill’s current 22 months. The Secretary of State’s office responded during closing remarks that there is no evidence of “algorithmic switching” of votes and reaffirmed that Nevada elections are secure; Gabriel De Cara also said the voter access program is meant to support county, tribal and local governments and that reporting and distribution language was developed in consultation with Assemblymember Lisa Cole.

The committee did not take a formal vote on AB 534 at this hearing. Members said they appreciated the presentations and testimony; the chair closed the hearing and moved to public comment.

Ending: The committee record includes multiple pieces of written and oral testimony for and against the bill and neutral operational analyses from Clark and Washoe counties. No final action was recorded at the Oct. 12 hearing; any subsequent amendments or votes will appear in later committee minutes and agendas.