The Ruling Is In — And It's a Big Deal
Six Nevada Republicans — charged with signing alternate electoral certificates after the 2020 election — asked Carson City District Court Judge James Russell to step aside last week. Their lawyers argued he couldn't be fair. They said his past rulings and public comments showed he had “actual bias” against the defendants.
Read our prior coverage: Nevada GOP Electors Ask Judge Who Ruled Against Trump in 2020 to Step Aside
Well, the judge agreed. Russell has officially recused himself from the case. The case now moves to a senior judge.
Who Is Judge Russell — And Why Did It Matter?
Judge Russell wasn't just any judge. He was the same jurist who, back in 2020, rejected legal efforts by Nevada Republicans to block Joe Biden's certification as the winner of the state's presidential election. That ruling is now central to this case.
The defendants — including Nevada GOP Chair Michael McDonald — have maintained all along that their actions were protected by the First Amendment. They say signing the alternate certificates was a legal way to preserve their right to challenge the election results.
Their lawyers argued that Russell's prior ruling is “inextricably intertwined” with that exact defense. In other words, the judge who already ruled against the 2020 challenges would be the same judge deciding whether challenging the 2020 election was a crime. That's a tough needle to thread.
On top of that, Russell made public comments in 2024 saying “Thank God for the judicial branch” in reference to election-related cases. He also mentioned receiving death threats after his 2020 ruling.
Defense attorneys said those comments showed he viewed the GOP's legal challenges as an “improper effort.” That kind of language from the bench doesn't inspire confidence in a fair trial.
What Happens Now?
With Russell out, the case goes to a senior judge in Carson City.
This isn't the only case in play. Nevada's part-time Attorney General Aaron Ford filed a separate criminal case right here in Clark County on two charges against the same electors.
Why Clark County? Certainly not because the alleged crime happened there; it didn't.
Probably because it leans Democratic, which gives prosecutors a better shot at a favorable jury pool. When a jurisdictional question came up about where the case properly belonged, Ford filed in Carson City to keep the prosecution alive. Now both cases are running at the same time.
But, if either case goes to a jury trial, the other one has to stop. They can't both proceed to trial simultaneously. So the legal chess match continues.
Why Conservatives Should Care
This case is about more than six Republicans facing charges. It's about whether political speech and legal protest can be criminalized after the fact. The defendants say they were doing exactly what the Constitution allows — raising objections to an election they believed was flawed. Ford's office says they committed forgery.
For conservatives who believe in limited government and individual rights, that distinction matters enormously. If you can be charged with a crime for signing a document that challenges an election, what happens the next time citizens want to push back on government action through legal channels?
The fact that the judge who already ruled against those 2020 challenges was originally assigned to this case raised serious fairness concerns. At least now those concerns have been acknowledged.
What You Can Do
Keep watching this case. A new judge will be assigned, and the legal maneuvering is far from over. As Ford polishes his gubernatorial daydreams from the AG's chair he's already checked out of, remember how his office has handled this prosecution every step of the way.
Justice shouldn't depend on which county your case lands in.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
