CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 1

Prohibited Use of “Reelection” for a Previous 

Office Holder Who Is Not the Incumbent 

Make Liberty Win v. Cegavske 

(Robert C. Jones, D. Nev. 3:20-cv-592) 

Election statutes forbade campaign materials from referring to the 

election of a previous office holder who was not the incumbent as 

reelection. The district judge agreed that application of the statutes 

to a specific campaign was unconstitutional but did not agree that 

the statutes were facially unconstitutional. 

Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Campaign materials; doorto-door canvassing; Covid-19. 

A political action committee filed a federal complaint in the District of Nevada on October 19, 2020, objecting to a determination by Nevada’s secretary 

of state that the committee could not advocate for the “reelection” of a former legislator who was not an incumbent.1

 With its complaint, the committee filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to expedite 

briefing, waiving oral argument.2

Nevada’s revised statutes on elections included chapter 294A on campaign practices. Among the provisions on required and prohibited practices 

were section 294A.330 on use of the term “reelect” and section 294A.340 on 

creating an implication that a candidate was an incumbent, both of which 

forbade referring to the election of someone who was not the incumbent but 

who previously held the office as reelection.3

Judge Robert C. Jones agreed on October 21 that an opposition brief 

would be due seven days after service of the complaint and a reply would be 

due three days after service of the opposition.4 On October 23, Judge Jones 

set the case for an October 29 videoconference hearing, posting on the public 

docket sheet telephone access for the public and a reminder that recording of 

the proceeding would not be permitted.5 The hearing was held at a time of 

widespread social distancing made necessary by the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic. 

At the hearing, Judge Jones informed the parties how he would rule, and 

he ordered submission of a proposed order.6 On November 2, the day before 

the election, Judge Jones issued a preliminary injunction providing relief to 

1. Complaint, Make Liberty Win v. Cegavske, No. 3:20-cv-592 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2020), 

D.E. 1; see Make Liberty Win v. Cegavske, 499 F. Supp. 3d 794, 797–99 (D. Nev. 2020). 

2. Briefing Motion, Make Liberty Win, No. 3:20-cv-592 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2020), D.E. 3 

(requesting that the opposition be due within seven days and a reply due three days after 

that); Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Oct. 19, 2020), D.E. 2. 

3. Make Liberty Win, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 798–99. 

4. Order, Make Liberty Win, No. 3:20-cv-592 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2020), D.E. 8. 

5. Docket Sheet, id. (Oct. 19, 2020) (minute order, D.E. 10). 

6. Id. (minutes, D.E. 18); see Proposed Order, id. (Oct. 31, 2020), D.E. 19; see Make Liberty Win, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 799. 
Prohibited Use of “Reelection” for a Previous Office Holder Who Is Not the Incumbent 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 

the plaintiff committee.7 An opinion followed four days later, concluding 

that although application of the statute to the plaintiff’s specific campaign 

materials was unconstitutional, the statute was not otherwise unconstitutional.8

The former legislator won the election.9

On November 8, 2021, Judge Jones resolved the case by resolving summary-judgment motions.10 Applying the statutory restrictions to former incumbents was unconstitutional because “Defendant fails to provide a compelling government interest in preventing people from truthfully using the 

term ‘reelect’ when they were previously elected to the office even if they are 

not the current incumbent.”11 But a facial challenge was wanting because “the 

statute can properly be enforced against a candidate falsely claiming to be an 

incumbent.”12

The defendant secretary agreed in December not to appeal Judge Jones’s 

decision and to pay the committee $20,000 in attorney fees.13

7. Preliminary Injunction, Make Liberty Win, No. 3:20-cv-592 (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2020), 

D.E. 20; Make Liberty Win, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 799; Make Liberty Win v. Cegavske, 570 F. 

Supp. 3d 936, 939–40 (D. Nev. 2021). 

8. Make Liberty Win, 499 F. Supp. 3d 794. 

9. Make Liberty Win, 570 F. Supp. 3d at 940; Current Assembly Legislators, www.leg. 

state.nv.us/App/Legislator/A/Assembly/Current (Jill Dickman, district 31).

10. Make Liberty Win, 570 F. Supp. 3d 936. 

11. Id. at 943. 

12. Id. at 945. 

13. Stipulated Judgment, Make Liberty Win v. Cegavske, No. 3:20-cv-592 (D. Nev. Dec. 

21, 2021), D.E. 39; Joint Stipulation, id. (Dec. 9, 2021), D.E. 38.