A resident of Las Vegas has launched a lawsuit against Nevada’s Secretary of State, Cisco Aguilar, alleging violations of the state’s public records law.
Chuck Muth, a Republican and president of the conservative Citizen Outreach Foundation, contends that the secretary of state’s office unlawfully withheld documents related to an investigation into voter integrity.
As part of his efforts to challenge the state’s voter rolls, Muth submitted an election integrity violations report in March 2024.
In this report, he claimed that a voter had submitted ballots in both Nevada and Texas during the 2022 election cycle.
According to the lawsuit filed in Carson City, Muth was informed by the secretary of state’s office that his complaint had been forwarded to investigators who subsequently interviewed the voter in question.
Later, the office announced that it had completed its review and closed the file on the case, but did not disclose the outcome of the investigation.
On November 24, Muth filed a public records request for all documents concerning that investigation.
He claims that the office has unreasonably delayed access to these vital public records throughout the process.
“It’s been like pulling teeth trying to get the information out of the secretary of state’s office so that we would have a better idea on how to proceed with our efforts to help clean up the voter rolls,” Muth stated in an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
In response to the lawsuit, the secretary of state’s office expressed its commitment to transparency and adherence to the law, stating it is prepared to defend those principles in court.
“The Office will have no further comment on ongoing litigation,” said a spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office.
The lawsuit outlines specific grievances regarding the secretary of state’s office, including its failure to respond promptly to Muth’s records request.
Under Nevada law, public agencies are obligated to respond to such requests within five business days.
However, Muth alleges that the office was slow to respond and informed him on December 5 that more time was necessary to fulfill the request, projecting a new completion date of January 10.
The office later extended the deadline to March 13.
When the documents were finally released on March 13, Muth received information regarding the voter’s voting history, but some records were withheld, citing attorney-client privilege and personal privacy interests, according to the complaint.
Muth countered that the documents he sought did not fall under those protections and requested them once again.
In a later communication, the secretary’s office conceded that certain records were not confidential and stated that they were conducting a search and review of additional records.
This search was followed by multiple extensions on expected delivery dates, according to Muth’s complaint.
On June 6, the office provided further documents, including a transcript of the investigator’s interview with the voter.
Through the transcript, Muth discovered additional documents that were relevant to his request, including letters sent to the voter and the investigator’s final report.
He also learned that the secretary of state’s office had acquired information regarding the case from the Electronic Registration Information Center, a partnership of 24 states and Washington, D.C., designed to share voter registration data, although he had not received that information.
“Every time they give you one record, then you got to find another,” Muth expressed, highlighting the challenges he faced in obtaining comprehensive information.
He added, “Plus, we don’t even know what records they may have that haven’t been provided.”
The secretary of state’s office had reportedly referred the case to the attorney general’s office in May 2024.
A month later, the attorney general responded, notifying the secretary of state that it would not pursue prosecution against the voter in question.
Muth indicated he plans to file requests with the attorney general to determine why the prosecution was declined.
According to the transcript from the investigator’s interview, the voter acknowledged that he had cast a ballot in Nevada and had also voted in Texas, although he claimed it was not his intention to submit two votes.
Muth argues that government records should be presumed public, and non-disclosure should be the exception rather than the rule.
He insists that the secretary of state should have redacted any sensitive information instead of withholding a significant portion of the case file.
image source from：reviewjournal
