Nevada
Nevada Supreme Court rules Green Party will not be on the state’s general election ballot
The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled 5-2 that Nevada Green Party candidate Jill Stein will not appear on the state’s presidential ballot because their petition failed to meet the minor party’s access requirements.
The Nevada Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in June against the Nevada Green Party for alleged invalid signatures.
The Green Party submitted 29,500 petition signatures so its candidates could be included on the ballot, which was roughly three times as many as needed. Nevada Democratic Party then sued, claiming some were signed too far in the past or seem altered, making them invalid.
The district court in Carson City denied the lawsuit in August. The Democrats amended the original lawsuit because the language used the improper affidavit. The case was then taken to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The state Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling to allow the Green Party to stay on the Nevada general election ballot. According to the court documents, the petition contained the “circulator affidavit for initiative and referendum petitions, instead of the circulator affidavit for minor party ballot access” which is what the Nevada Democratic Party amended their lawsuit to say.
The problem: The Green Party submitted the petition that does not swear that they believe each person signing the petition is a registered voter in the county of their residence. In order to be added to the ballot, all minor parties must include this verification. The Green Party did not, so the Nevada Democratic Party added this to their lawsuit and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled to not let them on the ballot for not meeting all requirements.
“The circulator affidavit used by the Nevada Green Party omitted a legally required element: the attestation that each signatory was a registered voter in the county of his or her residence,” the document said.
However, Justices Douglas Herndon and Justice Kristina Pickering voted against the ruling, saying they believed the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office made an “egregious error” when they accidentally sent the Green Party an affidavit with the incorrect requirements.
The secretary of state’s office originally sent the Nevada Green Party the wrong sample petition, which did not include the affidavit requiring voter registration verification, according to the documents. With the wrong affidavit, the Green Party’s petition would not meet the requirements of a minor political party to be on the ballot.
The party still managed to submit the petition with the right affidavit the first time, by not using the same form the secretary of state’s office provided them. However, this petition did not include a blank space for signers to put their petition district, so the office sent it back and notified the Nevada Green Party that they needed the petition district, and emailed the party new instructions.
The employee who provided the Green Party with further guidance told them they had an “older version,” according to the dissenting judges’ opinion. The employee asked the Green Party to use this “newer” form — with the wrong affidavit — to collect signatures.
The dissenting justices claim the Nevada Green Party was “affirmatively directed” by the secretary of state’s office to use this incorrect form because the employee told them to use the wrong form.
Still, the secretary of state’s online guide for minor political parties to apply to be on the ballot states the petition needs the verification that signatures are from people who are actual registered voters. So even without the proper affidavit, the state supreme court ruled that they should’ve done their research into what was required for them to be on the ballot.
The court acknowledged the miscommunication of improper materials on the behalf of the secretary of state’s office, but classified the situation as an unfortunate event that could’ve been remedied with a more in-depth review.
“There is no evidence that the email was anything but an unfortunate mistake or that the (s)ecretary intended to mislead the Green Party,” the documents said.
“If the Green Party had reviewed the petition before using it, it would have discovered the incorrect circulator affidavit …This is an unfortunate oversight on the part of both the secretary of state’s office and the Green Party.”
Herndon and Pickering said they believed the secretary of state’s office’s mistake would be the result of a “tremendous injustice.”
The secretary of state’s office told the RGJ in an email that they took “no position” on whether the Green Party’s petition was legal.
“We respect the decision of the Justices, and are working with the counties to ensure the decision is carried out,” Cecilia Heston, spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, said.
“Providing accurate information to the public is a priority for our office, and we will continue to review and improve all guides and documentation.”
The last time Green Party had any candidates on the Nevada ballot was in the 2008 presidential election, when Cynthia McKinney received about 1,400 votes compared with Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s 532,000.
Co-chair of the Nevada Green Party Margery Hanson told the RGJ due to the court events today, she “would not be voting this cycle.”
The Nevada Democratic Party did not respond to the RGJ’s request for comment.
Nevada
Nevada nonprofit, BCP challenging PUCN over NV Energy’s daily demand charge
LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — A Nevada nonprofit organization and the Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection are challenging the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada in court after the organization approved new NV Energy policies.
Vote Solar is a nonprofit advocacy group that focuses on state policies affecting solar and clean energy solutions.
WATCH | Darcy Spears breaks down challenge against PUCN
Nevada nonprofit, BCP challenging PUCN over NV Energy’s daily demand charge
According to their petition for judicial review, they are questioning the PUCN’s decision to approve two separate policies:
- A new daily demand charge for residential and small business customers in Southern Nevada
- A new 15-minute net metering policy for rooftop solar customers in Northern Nevada
In the petition, Vote Solar officials claim the PUCN’s final decisions are:
- In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions
- In excess of the statutory authority of the Commission
- Made upon unlawful procedure
- Affected by other error of law
- Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the record
- Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion
“The PUCN’s decision is a major step backward for Nevada’s clean energy future,” said Chauntille Roberts, Regional Director at Vote Solar. “Nevada deserves energy policies that protect consumers, expand access to solar, and move our state forward—not backward.”
The Attorney General Office’s Bureau of Consumer Protection has filed a separate petition for judicial review.
“The demand charge rate structure (if permitted to be implemented), the 15-minute NEM netting methodology, and the approved affiliate charges result in rates that are unjust, unreasonable, and unlawful in contravention of NRS 704.040, and undermine the Commission’s fundamental duty under NRS 704.001 to provide utility ratepayers with just and reasonable rates,” the filing states in part.
The filing also states commissioners approved $2.7 million worth of affiliate charges that ratepayers would cover.
“The Commission’s decision concerning affiliate charges is belied by the record as the evidence in this docket demonstrates that NPC failed to provide any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, sufficient to support the recovery of an aggregate of $2.7 million,” the filing states. “Not only is the $2.7 million in affiliate charges unsupported by actual charges, it is also unreasonable and an unsupported monetary number, resulting in the Commission’s decision being arbitrary and capricious.”
No future court hearings have been scheduled for that case, as of Friday morning.
Channel 13 has reached out to NV Energy and the PUCN to see if they would like to comment on the petition.
NV Energy sent the following statement to us.
“NV Energy believes the changes that were approved and reaffirmed by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada are consistent with state law, and we will be following this filing closely.
The demand charge more accurately captures the cost of energy delivery. It also helps to fix inequities between rooftop solar and non-rooftop solar customers. Because of the current billing structure, rooftop solar customers pay less than non-rooftop solar customers for the cost of service, shifting costs to non-rooftop solar customers.
Between 2018 and 2024, the total cost shift born by non-rooftop solar customers in Southern Nevada is $424 million. The total subsidy in Southern Nevada in 2025 is expected to grow by an additional $80 million, based on expected growth for the rest of the year.
The recently approved demand charge helps fix the inequities caused by the current system, and helps ensure that customer bills more accurately reflect the cost it takes to provide them with service.”
NV Energy Spokesperson
As of the time this article was published, we have not heard back from the PUCN.
In September, the PUCN approved the new rate model, which has sparked controversy among many Southern Nevadans who claim this will make their energy bills continue to go up.
“It’s painful. I just wanted to express concern as a private citizen that corporate America is going to do what it’s going to do to maintain profits and dividends,” Las Vegas local Joel Tauber told us in October.
“Why can a monopoly, a utility monopoly, dictate how I live in my residence,” retiree Jody Rodarmal told us in September. “If you believe there’s not going to be any increase, then why go to a new style of billing?”
SEPTEMBER 2025: NV Energy’s new billing structure sparks concern among Las Vegas residents
NV Energy’s new billing structure sparks concern among Las Vegas residents
How would the daily demand charge work?
According to NV Energy, the daily demand charge will be calculated by taking the highest amount of energy used in a 15-minute period each day and multiplying it by the current kilowatt-per-hour rate.
That charge will then be added to your bill. For the average customer, NV Energy estimates this will amount to roughly $20 per month.
WATCH: Ryan Ketcham explains NV Energy’s new daily demand charge
NV Energy is adding a ‘daily demand charge’ to power bills. What does that mean for consumers?
In past statements to Channel 13, NV Energy officials have stressed the rate increase requests are intended to recoup the costs of projects it undertakes to shore up the power grid.
However, there have been questions about that over the last year after scandals involving overcharging customers and trying to pass on the costs of things like luxury hotels, travel, and liquor to ratepayers, including a $1.2 million tab at Red Rock Resort.
According to NV Energy, Nevada customers already pay a lower average rate than the rest of the country. Through June 2025, the company says its rates were 22% lower than the U.S. average and 60% lower than in California.
Do you have a concern or question about something happening in the valley? Email Darcy.Spears@ktnv.com.
Nevada
DOJ sues Nevada for allegedly withholding voter registration information
The Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Nevada on Friday, alleging that the state failed to provide statewide voter registration lists when requested, according to a news release.
Colorado, Hawaii, and Massachusetts were also sued, bringing the total to 18 states now facing lawsuits from the Justice Department. The department’s Civil Rights Division filed the complaints.
Francisco Aguilar, Nevada secretary of state, was charged with violating the Civil Rights Act after he responded on Aug. 21 to a letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying there was no basis for her request for certain voter information, asserting privacy concerns, according to the lawsuit.
According to the complaint, Aguilar provided a link to the state’s computerized voter registration list. However, the version shared contained incomplete fields, including registrants’ full names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.
Aguilar’s Aug. 21 letter said his office would follow up, but the attorney general never received the list containing all the requested fields, the lawsuit said.
According to the news release, Congress assigns the attorney general primary responsibility for enforcing the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, both enacted to ensure that states maintain accurate and effective voter registration systems.
The attorney general also has authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to request, review, and analyze statewide voter registration lists, according to the release.
“States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in the release. “At this Department of Justice, we will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws. If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”
Contact Akiya Dillon at adillon@reviewjournal.com.
Nevada
Police: Deadly crash closes all lanes at I-15, Charleston
LAS VEGAS (FOX5) — A deadly crash has closed all lanes at I-15 and Charleston Boulevard, police say.
Nevada State Police posted on social media after 7 p.m. about the crash. Police say drivers in the area should use other routes.
Police have not immediately shared details about the victim or if other people are involved. It’s not yet confirmed if impairment is suspected.
This is a developing story. Check back later for details.
Copyright 2025 KVVU. All rights reserved.
-
Alaska7 days agoHowling Mat-Su winds leave thousands without power
-
Texas7 days agoTexas Tech football vs BYU live updates, start time, TV channel for Big 12 title
-
Ohio1 week ago
Who do the Ohio State Buckeyes hire as the next offensive coordinator?
-
Washington4 days agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa6 days agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Miami, FL6 days agoUrban Meyer, Brady Quinn get in heated exchange during Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami CFP discussion
-
Cleveland, OH6 days agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World5 days ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans