Law v. Whitmer (Nevada Election Law Contest)
Contest challenging the Presidential election with allegations of irregularities, improprieties, and fraud. Seeks to declare Trump and other Republicans winners of the election. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, squarely rejecting claims of voter fraud, irregular provisional ballots, mismatched signatures, illegal votes due to voting machines, ballots cast by ineligible voters, double voting, ballots cast by deceased voters, voter impersonation, and untimely ballots, ruling there was no evidence supporting any of these allegations. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.
Trump lost! Donald Trump and the attorneys below lost this case. Sad!
People are saying
"Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any election officials knowingly committed any misconduct relating to the operation of electronic voting machines, nor that election officials acted with nefarious intent in doing so." - Judge James T. Russell
"Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast or counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any [ ] improper or illegal reason, nor in an amount equal to or greater than 33,596, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election." - Judge James T. Russell
"Contest[ant]s did not prove under any standard of proof that the electronic voting machines malfunctioned in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election." - Judge James T. Russell
"[T]he Court finds that the expert testimony provided by Contestants was of little to no value. The Court did not exclude consideration of this evidence, which it should have, but gave it very little weight." - Judge James T. Russell
"Contestants offered [Scott] Gessler to opine on the transition to and administration of mail voting. Mr. Gessler's report lacked citations to facts and evidence that he used to come to his conclusions and did not include a single exhibit to support any of his conclusions. The Court finds that Mr. Gessler' methodologies unsound because he based nearly all of his opinions on a handful of affidavits that he took no steps to corroborate through independent investigation." - Judge James T. Russell
"Contestants offered [Michael] Baselice to opine on the incidence of illegal voting in the 2020 General Election based on a phone survey voters. The Court questions Mr. Baselice's methodology because he was unable to identify the source of the data for his survey and conducted no quality control of the data he received." - Judge James T. Russell
"Much of Contestants' evidence consists of non-deposition evidence in the form of witnesses declarations. These declarations fall outside of the scope of the contest statute, which provides that election contests 'shall be tried and submitted so far as may be possible upon depositions and written argument as the court may order.' . . . The reason for this is to allow for the cross-examination of the deponent under oath. . . . These declarations also constitute hearsay . . ." - Judge James T. Russell