The Republican National Committee, former President Donald Trump‘s campaign, and the Nevada Republican Party announced a lawsuit on Friday suing the Silver State over its allowance of mail ballots four days after Election Day.

The move is part of the RNC and Trump campaign’s election integrity efforts ahead of and through the Nov. 5 election against President Joe Biden.

“Nevada’s ballot receipt deadline clearly violates federal law and undermines election integrity in the state,” RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said in a statement. “Ballots received days after Election Day should not be counted — the RNC and our partners are suing to secure an honest election, support Nevada voters, and oppose unlawful schemes.”

The defendants in the case are Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, Washoe County Clerk Jan Galassini, Washoe County Registrar Cari-Ann Burgess, Clark County Registrar Lorena Portillo, and Clark County Clerk Lynn Marie Goya.

Nevada law stipulates mail ballots are mailed and postmarked by Election Day but then offers a four-day grace period.

The RNC alleges that the acceptance of mail ballots after Election Day “undermines the integrity” of the election and violates federal law by extending the election past Nov. 5.

“The result of Nevada’s violation of federal law is that timely, valid ballots are diluted by untimely, invalid ballots, which violates the rights of candidates, campaigns, and voters under federal law,” the suit claimed.

The Silver State adopted the all-mail voting system in 2021, largely due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans in the state objected to the change at the time.

Aguilar, the Secretary of State, pushed back against the allegations that Nevada mail ballot rules violate federal law in a statement to the Washington Examiner.

“Nevada runs some of the most secure, transparent, and accessible elections in the country. The key for that accessibility is allowing working Nevadans to vote using the method that works best for them, including voting by mail,” Aguilar said.

“Our office will not comment on ongoing litigation, but I hope the RNC is putting as much time and energy into educating voters on how to participate in elections as they put into suing the state of Nevada,” he continued.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

Trump lost Nevada in the 2020 election to Biden and in 2016 to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

A win in the Silver State in November would help Trump defeat Biden in their presidential election rematch.

There are at least 83 fair election lawsuits in 25 states the RNC is actively engaged in currently. Last month the RNC announced the launch of 100,000 poll-watching volunteers.

Nevada’s lone congressional Republican suffered a blow this week after six members of his own party joined Democrats to block a bill he authored to address a court ruling adopting a stricter interpretation of the 150-year-old General Mining Law.

Mining developers looking to extract minerals in Nevada are grappling with the aftermath of a 2022 U.S. appellate court ruling that essentially restricted mining companies from dumping waste on federal lands.

While federal mining law allows companies to mine on federal land where economically valuable minerals are present, the federal court decision ruled that companies are not guaranteed the right to use adjacent federal land without valuable minerals for related purposes – such as waste rock disposal or running power lines.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 — introduced by Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei —would respond to the ruling by removing a provision in an 1872 federal mining law that mining companies must show a mineral deposit is present before building roads and other support facilities at a potential site.

However, the legislation died on the House floor Wednesday after a 210-206 vote to send the bill back to the House Natural Resources committee. Amodei’s office did not respond in time for publication. 

Six hard-line Republicans — Andy Biggs and Eli Crane of Arizona, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Bob Good of Virginia and Matt Gaetz and Anna Paulina Luna of Florida — voted with all Democrats to block the bill.

During floor debate, Republicans argued the bill was needed to clarify a 2022 federal appeals court decision that blocked approvals for mining support facilities at an Arizona copper mine.

“The decision limited the ability of the Forest Service to approve necessary mining support facilities and activity, which is necessary for mining operations,” Minnesota Republican Pete Stauber said Wednesday. The decision “put virtually every new domestic mining project in jeopardy.”

In Nevada, the appellate court ruling has the potential to send mining projects — years in the making — back to square one.

In the case of a planned molybdenum mine by Nevada-based developer Eureka Moly LLC, a district court judge vacated the 2019 Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the project after ruling the developer did not have the right to dump waste rock on federal land without valuable mineral deposits.

The new stricter interpretation of the 150-year-old General Mining Law, also affected what may potentially become the largest lithium mine in the United States, the Thacker Pass project south of the Nevada-Oregon border. Last year, a district judge cited the Arizona ruling when determining that federal land managers violated federal law when they approved the mine developer’s plan to bury 1,300 acres of public land under waste rock.

Prior to the court decision adopting a stricter interpretation of the 150-year-old General Mining Law, mining companies had been dumping mining waste on neighboring federal lands without issue for decades. 

House Democrats argued Amodei’s bill would only benefit the mining industry by making it easier for companies to develop sites without documented mineral deposits. On the House floor, Democrats said the bill would give too much power to — and provide too little accountability for — mining companies that already work in a favorable regulatory environment.

New Mexico Democrat Melanie Stansbury said mining companies operate under an 1872 law that provides nearly unfettered access to lands that other extractive industries “could only dream of.”

Congress should be improving environmental protections to the 19th-century law, but the bill considered Wednesday would only weaken existing protections, she said.

“This bill removes the one frail safeguard that we have,” she said. “Under this bill, any American — or frankly any American subsidiary of a foreign company, including those that are located in adversarial countries — can put four stakes in the ground and on open public lands pay less than $10 an acre per year to have exclusive rights to that land, forever. Forever. This bill would create a free-for-all on our public lands.”

Both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate have described the federal appeals court decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Last year, Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has proposed a similar bill — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — that would make it legal to use part of a mining claim for mining related purposes on land without valuable minerals, including waste rock disposal.

Palo Verde rolled to a 12-2 home win over Sierra Vista in a high school baseball game Thursday. The game ended after six innings due to the 10-run rule.

RL Chandler went 2-for-3 with a home run and three RBIs for Palo Verde (21-10).

Palo Verde will next play in the 5A Southern Region playoffs next week as the Mountain League’s No. 2 seed. Sierra Vista (24-6) won the 4A Sky League title and will be a No. 1 seed in next week’s state playoffs.

Contact Alex Wright at awright@reviewjournal.com. Follow @AlexWright1028 on X.