Bill to require automatic recounts for very close Nevada races draws broad support and some opposition

Assemblymember Cecilia Gonzales introduced Assembly Bill 287 to the Assembly Committee on Legislative and Operations, saying automatic recounts for very close contests would verify election results and increase voter confidence. Gonzales, who represents Assembly District 16 in Clark County, told the committee the bill would require automatic recounts when the margin of victory for an elected office or a ballot question is 0.25% or less and would retain the option for defeated candidates to request recounts when the margin is 5% or less (with the requester paying estimated costs unless the recount reverses the outcome).

Gonzales said the bill removes a voter’s ability to demand a recount for a ballot question and replaces it with an automatic recount at the 0.25% threshold, and she described a friendly amendment from the Secretary of State’s office clarifying that the county pays for an automatic recount but may be reimbursed from the statutory contingency account (NRS 293.405) when a recount changes the outcome. Gonzales walked the committee through examples of past close local contests that would have triggered automatic recounts under the proposed standard and noted exclusions for contests in which voters may select more than one candidate.

Representatives from civic, voting rights and community groups offered broad support. Emily Persaud Zamora of Silver State Voices said automatic recounts “will level the playing field” for candidates who cannot quickly raise funds to pay for a recount; Shelby Swartz of Battle Born Progress and the ACLU of Nevada’s Tia Smith echoed the fairness argument. Several organizations and unions, including Mi Familia Accion, Make the Road Nevada, the Culinary Union and others, testified in support, saying small, municipal races are often decided by very few votes and should not be subject to a candidate’s ability to pay.

Representatives from the Secretary of State’s office explained operational aspects and cost structure. Gabriel DiCara, chief deputy secretary of state, said that under Nevada’s vote‑center model a single countywide recount can resolve multiple close races simultaneously, so the county’s estimate for an automatic recount can cover all affected contests in that county. He clarified that when multiple candidates request recounts the current practice is for each requester to post the estimated cost and then dividing refunds or charges after the recount is completed, and that counties already can predict costs for recounts in many cases.

Opponents and neutral witnesses raised constitutional and procedural concerns. Some callers argued the bill limits voters’ rights to demand recounts for ballot questions and that local jurisdictions should retain control over local recount procedures. One caller cited Nevada constitutional protections for local government elections and asked the committee to preserve voter access to demand recounts in some circumstances.

The Secretary of State’s office submitted a friendly drafting amendment (on file with the committee) to replace the term “person” with “filing officer” and to clarify the phrase “estimated cost of the recount” to “estimated recount cost.” Vice Chair Gonzales said she would explore restoring parity so voters could still request recounts for ballot questions under the same threshold used for candidate‑requested recounts. No formal committee vote was recorded during the hearing.