Nevada Senate committee considers broad elections cleanup bill that would expand electronic ballot options and add cyber response rules

Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar told the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections that Senate Bill 74 is a technical, nonpartisan update to Title 24 of Nevada Revised Statutes intended to bring Nevada's election code into alignment with recent policy changes and modern practice.

"Title 24 is the collective name for 19 chapters of statute," Aguilar said in opening remarks. He said the draft bill contains multiple administrative clarifications, conforming changes and definitions updates developed with county and city election officials and that the bill contains dozens of separate provisions identified for cleanup.

The bill would make a range of clarifying and nonpolicy administrative changes across the elections statutes (agencies and the sponsor described the package as a cleanup bill rather than a policy overhaul). Secretary Aguilar and Deputy Secretary for Elections Mark Voloshin described three broad categories of changes: clarifications (for example, clarifying that a high school trainee election board officer may apply regardless of party affiliation), conforming changes (such as making withdrawal deadlines consistent across statutes), and administrative adjustments (for example, updating archaic statutory references to ballot marking shapes). Aguilar said the bill includes approximately 78 provisions and that an amendment would add a small number of additional nonpolicy provisions and remove two sections.

A notable component that drew questions was a regulatory cyber incident response plan described in Section 26. "The secretary of state shall adopt by regulation a cyber incident response plan for elections," Deputy Secretary Voloshin said. He told the committee the plan is intended to complement—not replace—existing state cybersecurity governance and would encourage county and city election officials to coordinate with local emergency management about responses to a cybersecurity incident. Voloshin said the plan would be submitted as a regulation subject to Legislative Commission review before becoming a codified requirement.

Supporters said SB 74 would expand access for voters who need secure alternative ballot delivery and marking options and would strengthen coordinated cybersecurity practices. Ryan Vortish of Silver State Voices said SB 74 "presents an opportunity for expanding access to Nevada's EASE system" and praised the proposal to require a cyber incident response plan. Kayla Maese of the ACLU of Nevada and Chanel Casanello of All Voting Is Local Action Nevada also testified in favor, stressing that expansion of the EASE program would help voters with mobility or health limitations and those overseas or on tribal lands. Maureen Schaefer with Council for Better Nevada described SB 74 as a modernization step that improves transparency and efficiency.

Opponents focused chiefly on the measure's expansion of electronic ballot transmission and return, saying those features pose security risks. Janine Hanson, state chair of the Independent American Party, cited guidance from federal agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Election Assistance Commission and argued that "electronic ballot return technologies are high risk." Joshua Skaggs, legislative affairs director for the Nevada Republican Party, argued the expansion could lead to broader online voting use and urged a preference for paper ballots, single-day voting and voter identification as safeguards. Several other callers and in-person witnesses echoed cybersecurity concerns and urged rejection of the provisions that expand electronic return options.

Local election offices provided neutral or mixed feedback. Sean Seber from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles said the DMV expects no fiscal impact for its notification duties. Douglas County Clerk Amy Bergens praised the work of the Secretary of State's office in compiling cleanup items but urged careful review of every section; she also asked for clarity about whether sensitive, court-ordered confidentiality redactions would be preserved if candidate identity documents are made public.

Deputy Secretary Voloshin closed by offering one-on-one meetings with any interested stakeholders and repeating the office's contact information. "If anybody has any questions about the bill and would like to talk one on one ... we are more than willing to meet with them," he said, noting the office's intent to preserve election integrity while answering public concerns.

The committee took testimony but did not take a final vote during the hearing.