Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo made the right call when he vetoed Assembly Bill 499.
Despite the noise from some critics, including Democratic attorney Brad Schrager – who accused Lombardo of rejecting his own idea – the Governor’s decision wasn’t just defensible. It was essential.
Let’s break it down in plain language.
What AB499 Was Supposed to Do
AB499 was pitched as a “compromise” voter ID bill.
On the surface, it required voters to show photo ID when voting in person. That might sound good. But when you dig into the details, things get messy.
Here’s the kicker: while in-person voters would have to show an ID, people voting by mail – which makes up the vast majority of ballots in Nevada – could still vote using just a signature and a 4-digit number.
That creates two very different systems:
- One strict system for in-person voters.
- One loose system for mail voters.
In other words, a voter ID law in name only.
The Governor’s Reasoning
In his veto message, Gov. Lombardo didn’t mince words.
He called AB499 “a poor attempt at implementing voter ID” and said it would “weaken election integrity, not strengthen it.”
He’s right.
Lombardo supported a real voter ID constitutional amendment – not a watered-down version. That amendment, backed by nearly 200,000 Nevadans through a citizen initiative, would apply strong ID rules across the board.
AB499, on the other hand, left huge loopholes and failed to fix the problems with signature verification, which experts agree is the weakest link in mail voting.
Let’s Talk About Mail Voting
Nevada has one of the most expansive mail-in voting systems in the country. That means any law pretending to tighten election security needs to deal with mail ballots first and foremost.
AB499 didn’t. Instead, it let mail-in voters bypass photo ID entirely.
They just had to write down the last four digits of a driver’s license or Social Security number – and that’s only if their signature couldn’t be verified.
But as Gov. Lombardo rightly pointed out, “Signature verification is inherently subjective and inconsistent.”
Even worse, AB499 removed the current legal requirement to verify signatures for in-person voters, replacing it solely with a photo ID requirement – while leaving signature matching in place for mail ballots.
That’s not uniform. It’s confusing. And it actually makes the system less secure.
A Bad Deal Disguised as a Compromise
Critics like Brad Schrager tried to frame Lombardo’s veto as cowardice.
In a quote to The Nevada Independent, Schrager said the governor “lost his nerve and broke his word” by vetoing the bill, calling it “public policy malpractice.”
But that’s spin, not fact.
Lombardo didn’t reject voter ID. He rejected a weak bill that pretended to be about voter ID but kept in place the same broken mail-in voting rules that worry many Nevadans.
And let’s not forget: this bill was written by legislative Democrats, not by the governor’s team.
If anything, AB499 was a political trap – designed to undercut the 2026 voter ID constitutional amendment by passing something far weaker in the meantime.
Nevadans Want Real Voter ID
Poll after poll shows strong support for voter ID.
A 2021 Pew Research Center poll found that 76% of Americans – including 61% of Democrats – favor requiring photo identification to vote.
That support has only grown in states like Nevada, where voters have seen firsthand how loose the rules are for mail ballots.
The citizen-led constitutional amendment, which does call for meaningful voter ID, is expected to be on the ballot in 2026. And this time, voters will have the final say – not politicians.
The Bottom Line
Gov. Lombardo didn’t veto voter ID. He vetoed a fake version of it.
He stood up for election integrity and rejected a bill that would’ve locked in loopholes and confusion. That’s not cowardice – it’s leadership.
Don’t be fooled by partisan outrage or slick headlines.
The governor was elected to protect the integrity of our elections, not to play along with bad policy just because it’s labeled “bipartisan.”
Sometimes doing the right thing means saying no. And this was one of those times.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
