Judge Cristina Silva, who was nominated by President Biden to the District of Nevada, dismissed a lawsuit by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and others that accuses Nevada of failing to purge enough voters from its voter rolls before the upcoming election. The October 2024 decision was in Republican National Committee v Aguilar
.
What happened in this case?
Nevada is one of several very narrowly divided states in the upcoming election. Republicans have complained that state and county officials have failed to purge from voter rolls enough of what they claim are improperly registered voters due to change of address or other factors. The RNC, the state Republican party, and a Republican voter filed a federal court lawsuit asserting that Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and other state and county officials have violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by failing to make sufficient efforts to remove improperly registered voters from the rolls.
The complaint was initially dismissed by Judge Silva this June with leave to amend, and the RNC and other plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. They continue to claim that state and local officials have violated the NVRA, and seek an order mandating that these officials rapidly implement a program to remove voters from the rolls. Secretary Aguilar and other officials strongly disagreed, and filed a motion to dismiss the case as a matter of law.
How did Judge Silva decide the case and why is it important?
Judge Silva carefully considered the briefs and arguments by both sides and issued an opinion dismissing the Republicans’ lawsuit. Initially, she ruled that the individual Republican voter did not have standing to sue. That voter claimed that he fears that ineligible voters in Nevada will “dilute” his legitimate vote. Judge Silva explained, however, that these allegations were “impermissibly generalized and speculative.” They are simply a “generalized grievance” that can be raised by any voter, she went on, and ”do not present ‘an individual and personal injury of the kind required for Article III standing.’” Article III also requires that the threatened injury be “certainly impending” to confer standing, Judge Silva wrote, and this was not the case here. The complaint mentions four convictions for voter fraud in the state over the last ten years, and Judge Silva explained that these four convictions “in the span of ten years does not support that voter dilution is ‘certainly impending’ “ due to alleged list maintenance problems.
Judge Silva also ruled that neither the RNC nor the state party had organizational standing. This conclusion was based, she explained, on the Supreme Court’s recent standing decision in the abortion pill case and a September ruling by Trump Ninth Circuit judges Kenneth Lee and Daniel Collins. The recent Ninth Circuit ruling makes clear, Judge Silva explained, that organizational plaintiffs must allege more than a “frustrated mission and diverted resources,” which was the basis for the RNC and state party complaint. Recent precedent “has made clear,” she concluded, that “these claims do not meet the injury in fact requirement.” In addition, she pointed out, NVRA time deadlines would make it impossible to remove voters due to alleged change of address, the Republicans’ primary theory, between now and the election.
Judge Silva’s decision is obviously important to voters across Nevada by throwing out Republican attempts to remove voters from the voter rolls before this election. The case is not yet over, since the judge allowed the RNC and state party to try to file an amended complaint by November 1, and the plaintiffs could appeal as well. Nevertheless, the ruling is extremely significant in Nevada and may also be useful in other states where Republicans have mounted last-minute challenges to voter rolls. In addition, the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.