Committee hears bill to criminalize false slates of presidential electors; advocates and opponents clash over free speech, federal conflict

Senate Bill 102, sponsored by Senator Skip Daly, would make it illegal to create, serve on, or conspire to create or serve on a false slate of presidential electors and adds a separate offense for submitting a false instrument with intent to defraud. The bill sets criminal penalties, authorizes the Secretary of State to investigate complaints and issue subpoenas, and bars convicted persons from ever serving in an elected or appointed state or local office (though employment in non-elected positions would still be permitted under the text presented in committee).

Sponsor overview and revisions from prior session

Senator Daly told the committee SB102 is similar to a prior bill (SB133 from a previous session) but includes changes responsive to the governor's veto message: the criminal penalty for creating or serving on a false slate was reduced from a higher sentence to a conditional probation or a 1-to-4-year sentence with fines up to $5,000 and costs of investigation and prosecution. Daly said the bill now removes an earlier provision that would have barred a convicted person from any state or local government employment, limiting the restriction to elected or appointed positions.

Proponents and why they support the bill

Supporters said SB102 fills a gap the sponsor and some stakeholders say was exposed by false-elector schemes elsewhere and in 2020. Carrie Dermott of All Voting is Local Action and Shelby Swartz of Battle Born Progress testified in support, arguing the bill establishes "clear legal guardrails and consequences" to deter attempts to submit fraudulent electors or false documents and to protect the integrity of presidential elections.

Opposition, constitutional and practical concerns

Opponents raised constitutional and practical objections. The Nevada Republican Party (testimony by Barney Wadley) warned that prosecuting individuals who cast electors could chill constitutionally protected conduct under the Twelfth Amendment and cited historical examples (Hawaii, 1960) to argue electors sometimes face factual uncertainty at the time of the electoral college vote. Others argued SB102 duplicates federal reforms already enacted after 2020 — including the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 (ECRA) — and could create conflicts with federal processes.

Civil-rights and proportionality concerns

Several witnesses and callers also objected to the bill's penalties and collateral consequences. Janine Hanson (Independent American Party) and other opponents said fines, felony exposure and a permanent bar on seeking elected or appointed office are disproportionate and could be used for selective prosecution; some warned that the bill could curtail legitimate challenges during contested post-election litigation.

Legal mechanics in the bill

Under the version presented, SB102 would require a complaint to the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State would investigate and could either initiate proceedings or refer a matter to the Attorney General for prosecution. The bill also grants the Secretary of State subpoena authority and defines the acts that would constitute the core offense (creating, serving, conspiring to create or serve on a false slate). The sponsor said the measure is meant to address the conduct the governor termed a "terrible crime" in his prior veto message and that the bill's revised penalties were crafted in response to that veto.

Committee outcome and closing remarks

Committee members asked questions about the bill's reach, the unusual collateral bar on holding office, and the potential for conflict with federal law and the constitutional role of electors. Daly said he made revisions to address the governor's concerns and to reduce penalties from last session's draft, and he defended the bill as necessary to permit prosecution of schemes to present false electors.

Ending: The committee heard testimony for and against SB102; no final vote was taken. The sponsor said he would continue to work on the measure and defended its goals of accountability and deterrence.