Henderson Pastor Andy Michael Thompson believes Nevada’s election system is stacked against regular citizens – and he’s taking that fight straight to the state’s highest court.
After a Clark County judge dismissed his case earlier this year, Thompson filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court.
He’s not challenging any particular race or candidate.
Instead, he’s challenging how Nevada law decides who gets a voice when something doesn’t look right at the ballot box.
What He’s Arguing
At the center of the legal fight is Nevada Revised Statute 293.042 — a section of state law that spells out how an election “contest” must be filed.
Here’s what the statute actually says:
“Contest” means an adversary proceeding between a candidate for a public office who has received the greatest number of votes and any other candidate for that office or, in certain cases, any registered voter of the appropriate political subdivision, for the purpose of determining the validity of an election.
Right now, that law limits challenges mostly to candidates and campaigns. Thompson says that’s wrong.
He says voters, not just politicians, deserve the right to question how elections are run.
He’s also tying his challenge to the U.S. Constitution — specifically the Guarantee Clause, which ensures states maintain a “republican form of government,” and the Due Process Clause, which guarantees fairness.
Thompson claims that without transparency, audit trails, or proper data preservation, those constitutional promises mean nothing.
And he’s not stopping there. He’s citing federal record-keeping law (52 U.S.C. § 20701), arguing that Nevada’s handling of election data may fall short of federal standards requiring records to be kept for at least 22 months.
Why It Matters in Nevada
This case isn’t about red or blue. It’s about access, trust, and accountability.
For conservatives who’ve watched the steady expansion of mail-in voting, drop boxes, and automatic registration, this case hits close to home.
Thompson’s argument could open the courtroom doors to ordinary voters – not just insiders with campaign cash and lawyers on speed dial.
If the Supreme Court sides with him, it could completely change how election disputes work in Nevada.
Voters might finally have a path to challenge questionable procedures, demand audits, and push for full transparency.
If the court rules against him, though, it keeps the gate firmly closed. That would mean only candidates or campaigns could question election outcomes, leaving citizens with little more than frustration — or the long, slow path of legislative reform.
A Bigger Battle Than One Case
Many Nevada residents — especially in Clark and Washoe counties — have raised questions about data security, mail-ballot tracking, and the lack of independent audits.
Officials, including Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, insist Nevada’s system is sound and transparent. But skepticism remains.
Thompson’s case doesn’t claim widespread fraud. It raises a more fundamental question: Who’s allowed to ask the questions?
Supporters see his appeal as a stand for fairness and accountability. Critics warn that expanding “standing” – who can sue – could unleash a flood of lawsuits that bog down election results.
That tension sits at the heart of this case: protecting voter confidence without overwhelming the system.
What Comes Next
The Nevada Supreme Court will first decide whether Thompson even has the right to bring the case; his “standing.”
If he clears that hurdle, the justices could take up the deeper constitutional issues.
Either way, this decision could echo well beyond Henderson. Lawmakers in Carson City will be watching closely.
A ruling for Thompson could force them to revisit Nevada’s election statutes next session. A ruling against him could lock the door tighter – leaving reform to the ballot box, not the bench.
The Takeaway
Elections aren’t just about who wins. They’re about whether voters believe the process itself can be trusted.
Thompson’s case reminds us that confidence in government starts at the polls – and sometimes, it takes an ordinary citizen with extraordinary persistence to cut through the thick red tape.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
