Top Nevada court says unpostmarked ballots received after US Election Day can be counted
Adds RNC reaction in paragraphs 5-6
By Jack Queen
Oct 28 (Reuters) -The Nevada Supreme Court on Monday ruled that mail-in ballots received after Election Day without a postmark may be counted, a loss for Republicans in a battleground state that could determine the next president and control of the U.S. Congress.
The seven justices affirmed a lower court ruling against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee, which sued to block a Nevada Secretary of State’s Office policy holding that ballots received by the third day after the election without a postmark must be counted.
“If a voter properly and timely casts their vote by mailing their ballot before or on the day of the election, and through a post office omission the ballot is not postmarked, it would go against public policy to discount that properly cast vote,” the court’s majority said.
The ruling was handed down a week ahead of the Nov. 5 election between Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican former President Trump. It is the latest courtroom setback for Republicans suing over election rules, though they have notched some recent victories and are appealing rulings against them.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Claire Zunk said the ruling undermines a critical election security safeguard that ensures ballots mailed after Election Day are not counted.
“By allowing Nevada officials to ignore the law's postmark requirement, the state's highest court has undermined the integrity of Nevada's elections,” Zunk said in a statement.
The RNC said in its complaint that it would be harmed by the policy because Republicans vote by mail at much lower rates than Democrats.
But the Nevada justices said Republicans offered no evidence of a partisan lean in ballots that were left unpostmarked due to random post office error, or that the 24 unpostmarked ballots the party identified in Clark County during the 2024 primary election had any impact on the race. Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, is the Western state's most populous county.
In its ruling, the court’s majority also said the secretary of state’s policy aligns with the intent of Nevada’s mail-in ballot laws, which the court said were designed to expand, not limit, access to voting.
The justices unanimously agreed on the result of the ruling, but two of them wrote concurring opinions saying they disagreed with the majority’s interpretations of certain legal questions.
Reporting by Jack Queen; editing by Jonathan Oatis
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
