Nevada committee debates bill criminalizing submission of false presidential electors; critics cite constitutional and due‑process concerns

The Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections heard Senate Bill 102, legislation aimed at making it a crime to create, serve on, or conspire to create or serve on a false slate of presidential electors in Nevada.

Senator Skip Daley, presenting the bill as the vice chair in legislative operations and elections, said SB102 is a revised version of last session’s SB133 and contains three major changes intended to address the governor’s earlier veto message: a new general penalty provision for submitting false instruments with intent to defraud, reduction of the criminal penalty for creating or serving on a false slate from a nonprobationable 4–10 year term to a conditional probationary term with possible 1–4 years and a restructuring of employment restrictions so a conviction would bar election or appointment to state or local office but not unrelated government employment.

Daley described other components of the bill: a fine of up to $5,000 and possible payment of investigation and prosecution costs; conditional probation that may include six months in county jail; subpoena authority for the Secretary of State; referral processes to the Attorney General; and statutory definitions of “create,” “serve” and “conspire” related to false slates.

Supporters of SB102 told the committee the measure would strengthen election accountability and provide clear consequences for attempts to submit unauthorized elector slates. Kerry Durmic, state director for Albany's Local Action Nevada, told the committee SB102 “would establish clear legal guidelines and consequences for individuals engaging in such actions in future presidential elections.”

Opponents said the bill is overbroad, risks politicized prosecutions, and may conflict with constitutional procedures and recent federal reforms. Joshua Skaggs, legislative affairs director for the Nevada Republican Party, warned the bill could “shield future presidential electors from performing their constitutional duties under the Twelfth Amendment” and cited historical examples (Hawaii, 1960) where conditional or alternate elector actions were used to preserve rights pending recounts. Janine Hanson of the Independent American Party described the penalties as “extraordinary and extreme” and raised concerns about due process and the Secretary of State’s investigatory role. Other callers, including Iris Stone and several civic commenters, called the bill a “dangerous overreach” that risks chilling political participation and enables selective prosecution.

Committee counsel Aaron McDonald told members such cost‑recovery provisions have precedent in Nevada law and said he would supply statutory citations on request.

Assembly members asked detailed constitutional questions, including whether the bill would affect electors exercising duties under federal law and the 12th Amendment; Daley said states determine elector selection processes and that the bill targets submission of slates that contradict the state’s certified result. Members also pressed on procedure and scope, and several public callers urged rejection on constitutional and due‑process grounds, citing the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA) and federal statutes governing electors.

No vote was taken on SB102 during the hearing. The committee received both in‑person testimony and dozens of phone testimonies. Debate focused on drafting and constitutional implications rather than a final committee decision.