Clark County NV is barring ALL outside oversight of the election process, to a degree I’ve never seen before. Emergency help needed here!

By Jim March Simpsonb668e6190eada040c5751493ed53b8a3

Ongoing conversation and updates are available on REDDIT

So s#!t got real in Nevada…Clark County specifically but the Vegas area is such a high percentage of the NV vote we might as well call it Nevada.

The Clark County Registrar of Voters Joe Gloria is claiming that there is no public oversight to the elections process whatsoever. Not only are the ballot images not public record, neither are signed polltapes (for copying or inspection), central tabulator audit logs, etc. Nada, nothing, period. Mr. Gloria didn’t specify any particular case law or statute backing up his position. With zero outside oversight, he can do whatever he wants. He can rig an election six ways from Sunday and there’s no stopping him. I have caught all manner of fraud in various counties by looking at stuff like voting machine audit logs, databases and the like, and in many cases managed to put a stop to at least some abuses. It’s an ongoing war. Nevada however…there’s no fight here without lawyers and money and it needs to happen like NOW.

Nevada is looking like a key swing state. Kansas and Utah are doing the same stuff by the way; Kansas isn’t so crucial in the Presidential race but Utah is so we’ll have to look there next…I’ll do another post on them.

I’ve done a basic skim of the Nevada laws in question. Starting with the constitution, all we find is this:

Sec: 27. Disqualification of jurors; elections. Laws shall be made to exclude from serving on juries, all persons not qualified electors of this State, and all persons who shall have been convicted of bribery, perjury, foregery [forgery,] larceny or other high crimes, unless restored to civil rights; and laws shall be passed regulating elections, and prohibiting under adequate penalties, all undue influence thereon from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practice.

So if the laws don’t back fair elections, we could in theory go to court and force transparent procedures.

Let’s look at the laws next.

NRS 293.025 “Ballot” defined. “Ballot” means the record of a voter’s preference of candidates and questions voted upon at an election. The term includes, without limitation, any paper given to a voter upon which the voter places his or her vote and any electronic storage tapes.

NRS 293.274 Members of general public allowed to observe conduct of voting at polling place; photographing or otherwise recording conduct of voting by members of general public prohibited.

  1. The county clerk shall allow members of the general public to observe the conduct of voting at a polling place.
  2. A member of the general public shall not photograph the conduct of voting at a polling place or record the conduct of voting on audiotape or any other means of sound or video reproduction.
  3. For the purposes of this section, a member of the general public does not include any person who:

(a) Gathers information for communication to the public;

(b) Is employed or engaged by or has contracted with a newspaper, periodical, press association, or radio or television station; and

(c) Is acting solely within his or her professional capacity.

This is REALLY bad, if I’m reading this right: it means that members of the press or election observers who are paid in any way by a candidate, political party or election transparency organization have any rights to observe…at least at the polling place. Worse, this is the only public oversight allowed in the whole process – nothing else in the election-specific laws contain even a concept of “outside oversight”. That’s crazy.

The public records laws contain no mention at all of election-related public records:

Upshot: the NV Constitution requires the legislature to pass laws creating elections free from “undue influence” or “other improper practices” and has catastrophically failed to do so. With no public oversight mandated, at least this county election official has completely “Gone Wild” and banned any effective oversight whatsoever.

Given the constitutional mandate, the courts can go in and force effective public oversight of elections. Such a law has to be filed ASAP.

My conversation with the NV Registar of Voters Joe Gloria follows; note that I started out making a mistake thinking “normal election records” would be public as they are in the vast majority of US states:

Mr. Gloria,

The attached records request asks for information related to the upcoming 2016 general election.

Specifically, I am asking for electronic ballot images (in electronic form) produced by your voting systems.

In a few cases the voting systems in question (known as “graphic” or “digital” optical scan machines) need a software setting turned “on” to save the images to disk space found in the scanning station. I am asking you to turn that on; my arguments for doing so (along with my contact info and exact details as to the request) are attached as a .PDF file; this file was created in Linux and contains no virus or malware.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Jim March Simpson

Records request was attached:

Mr. Simpson,


Joe P. Gloria, MPA, CERA Registrar of Voters Clark County Election Department 965 Trade Dr. North Las Vegas, NV 89030 jpg@clarkcountynv.gov702.455.2944 (Office) 702.455.2793 (Fax)

Sir, what is your basis for that stance? Can you point to anything that states these graphic scans and the matching CVR report are not publicly available records?

By default, public records are publicly available. A new rule is NOT needed to release a type of record that is admittedly new.

Put another way: the original paper ballots are the official final record of each vote, and cannot be readily accessed without an election challenge or similar court action. We both understand that. The graphic scans are an intermediate step between the original paper and the final tabulation in a database from which the official returns are reported. In optical scanning before graphic scans existed, the chain of “data flow” on a Diebold classical optical scan system looked like this:

Accuvote Central Count (Mark Sense) -> RS-232 serial cable -> GEMS database -> HTML format reports of vote totals for upload to a website.

The GEMS database in this case is the only intermediate record between the paper and the final reporting, and those databases have been declared public records in numerous states and several court actions. I helped fight such a case in Tucson AZ in 2006-2007 – we won.

Now, with graphical scanning, we have a new intermediate electronic record between the paper and the final reporting. You are claiming that this new type of audit tool needs a court order to get at?

Can you confirm that those graphic scans will exist after the end of the election, and what their preservation period will be?


Jim Simpson

Sir all voting records are held for 22 months after the election. And none of them are released to the general public without a court order.


Mr. Gloria,

You are making a basic mistake. You are trying to treat these graphic scans of ballots as actual ballots. They’re not.

Are you telling me that the public cannot access any of the electronic audit records from an electronic election? For example, there are documents that track the chain of custody of ballots, signed by pollworkers. There are the audit logs from the central tabulator and much more. Are you claiming that ALL of that is sealed away from all public view and then destroyed at 22 months?

I certainly hope not – that policy would make your agency the least transparent and publicly accountable election administration in the country. You’d rival most half-wit 3rd world dictators in holding secret elections.

I am assuming you are not at that level of barring outside oversight. If that is the case, you need to realize that the graphic scans are not the final official ballot – that title remains with the original paper. The graphic scans are a new electronic audit tool, one that is easy to copy and turn over as a public record and one that can be used to prevent cheating.

I hope that last issue isn’t your actual objection.

Jim Simpson


As I previously mentioned all of these records are election related and are stored away for 22 months after the election. I am disappointed that you would insinuate that my staff is involved in any type of illegal activity. We take our service to the public seriously. My canvass report will identify any discrepancies which have occurred in the election. And that will be available to the general public.


Mr. Gloria,

Are any of the following public records available for inspection and/or copying:

  • Windows Event log
  • Central tabulator audit log
  • precinct voting machine audit logs
  • cast vote record

I would like to know before making a formal request for them.

Jim Simpson

No sir they are not.


In that case sir speaking as somebody who is done public records request for the electronic debris of elections all over the country since 2003 you are running the single most secretive election process I’ve ever encountered. I am genuinely surprised that nobody noticed this given the size and prominence of your county.

Sir I don’t know if you are cheating at elections or not. I do know for a fact that at present you have the ability to cheat at you have the ability to cheat at elections. I can also assure you that one way or another that ability is going to be taken from you.

Jim Simpson


Leave a Reply
