The Case Reaches Appeals Court
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments this Friday about Nevada’s Election Worker Protection Law. The court will decide if a lawsuit challenging the law can move forward. So far, the case has been dismissed twice by lower courts.
Nevada’s Senate Bill 406 became law in 2023 when Republican Governor Joe Lombardo signed it after bipartisan support in the legislature. The law creates new felony offenses to protect election workers from intimidation and harassment. It also makes it illegal to share an election worker’s personal information without their permission, a practice known as “doxxing.”
Arguments From Both Sides
Those Supporting the Challenge
Sigal Chattah, Nevada Republican National Committeewoman, filed the lawsuit in June 2023 on behalf of a group of former election workers and poll watchers. The plaintiffs argue that the law is too vague about what counts as “intimidation” and “undue influence.” They believe it could limit free speech protected by the First Amendment and might violate due process rights under the 14th Amendment.
Another concern raised by the challengers is that the term “election official” isn’t clearly defined in the law. This vagueness, they claim, makes it difficult for citizens to know when they might be breaking the law. They worry that people might become afraid to report election concerns for fear of criminal charges.
The plaintiffs want to continue their case to determine if the law violates the Constitution, but they must first convince the appeals court that they have standing to sue.
Those Defending the Law
Governor Lombardo, Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, and other state officials defend the law as necessary protection for election workers. They argue that the plaintiffs haven’t shown how they would be personally harmed by the law, which is why the case has been dismissed twice already.
State officials maintain that the law’s language is clear, not vague, and that it doesn’t prevent legitimate questioning or reporting of election concerns. According to court filings, the defendants claim that “Plaintiffs have shown they are unable to articulate any protected speech that S.B. 406 prohibits.” They point out that similar protections exist for other government workers who face harassment or intimidation.
Defenders of the law see it as a reasonable measure to protect election workers while still allowing for proper election oversight and transparency.
What Happens Next
The appeals court will hear arguments on March 7th at 12:30 p.m. ET. The judges won’t decide if the law is constitutional. Instead, they’ll only determine if the plaintiffs have the right to continue their case.
If the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, the case will return to the trial court for a full hearing on the law’s constitutionality. If the court agrees with the earlier dismissals, the challenge will end.
The Bigger Picture
This case touches on important questions about election security, free speech, and government transparency. Society continues to wrestle with how to balance protecting election workers from harassment while ensuring election transparency. There are legitimate concerns about when questioning election officials crosses the line into intimidation.
Some people believe government workers should have special legal protections, while others worry such protections could shield officials from proper scrutiny. Legal experts often debate how specific laws should be when defining new criminal offenses.
Whatever the court decides, this case highlights the ongoing debate about election laws and procedures that many states continue to face after recent elections. Observers from across the political spectrum will be watching closely when the 9th Circuit hears arguments this Friday, as similar laws in other states could face legal challenges depending on the outcome.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
