If you’re planning to run for public office in Nevada, you better make sure your dog, your driver’s license, and your Amazon packages all show up at the same address.
Seriously.
A new bill passed by the Nevada Senate (awaiting action in the Assembly) – SB428 – is putting candidates under a microscope when it comes to where they actually live.
And while that might sound like a good idea, there’s a catch: those same rules don’t apply to voters.
Candidates Now Face a Laundry List of Residency Proof
Under SB428, folks running for office must prove they “actually” live in the district they want to represent – not just own property there or claim it on paper.
And this isn’t just a one-and-done rule.
The bill says candidates must keep that actual residency the entire time they’re in office. If they move out of their district? Boom. That’s a vacancy. They’re out.
To prove their residency, candidates now have to show things like:
- Where they live most of the time,
- Where their spouse, kids, or even pets live,
- The address on their driver’s license, bank statements, utility bills, and more.
All that paperwork becomes part of the public record (with personal details like Social Security numbers redacted), so anyone can check if a candidate really lives where they say they do.
Candidates also have to sign extra oaths under penalty of perjury, swearing they live where they claim – and promising to step down if they’re caught lying.
Meanwhile, Voters? Just Check a Box
Now here’s where it gets interesting.
While candidates are now being treated like they’re applying for top-secret security clearance, voters in Nevada still don’t have to show proof of residency at all.
When someone registers to vote, all they do is check a box saying they live in the state. No ID. No utility bill. Nothing.
Want to challenge a voter’s residency? Nevada law says you must have “personal knowledge” that they don’t live where they say.
That’s a near-impossible standard. Unless you’re tailing voters like a private investigator, good luck making that challenge stick.
And while 200,000 names were recently removed or inactivated from the voter rolls in a so-called “cleanup,” election watchdogs say that doesn’t fix the real issue.
“This bill treats residency like a sacred trust for candidates,” said Iris Stone, director of Citizen Outreach’s “Pigpen Project” to clean up the voter rolls, “but when it comes to voters, it’s still the honor system.”
A Clear Double Standard
Let’s break it down in plain terms:
| Requirement | Candidates | Voters |
| Proof of Address | Required (ID, bills, etc.) | Not required |
| Public Verification | Yes | No |
| Legal Oath | Yes, under perjury | No |
| Penalties | Lose your job | None |
| Residency Check | Actively enforced | Rarely enforced |
If you want to run for office, you need receipts. But if you just want to vote, you don’t even need an envelope. That’s not just a technical difference. It’s a trust gap.
Nevada lawmakers say they’re cracking down on “sham candidates,” but why not apply that same concern to sham voters?
What Critics Say
Supporters of the bill say it’s about keeping elected officials honest and connected to their communities. Fair enough.
But conservative groups are asking: why the double standard?
“If we’re going to demand proof that candidates live in their district,” said Citizen Outreach president Chuck Muth, “we should at least expect voters to prove they live in the state.”
Critics on the left argue that adding ID or proof-of-residency requirements for voters would be “voter suppression.” But requiring photo ID and a utility bill to run for city council apparently isn’t.
Nobody’s saying we shouldn’t know where our public officials live. That’s just common sense.
But maybe it’s time we applied a little of that same common sense to the voter side of the equation. If your address matters for governing, shouldn’t it matter for voting too?
