CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/6/2023 1

Suits to Extend Deadlines for Ballot-Petition 

Signatures in Nevada During a Pandemic 

Fair Maps Nevada v. Cegavske (Miranda M. Du, 

3:20-cv-271) and Fight for Nevada v. Cegavske 

(Richard F. Boulware II, 2:20-cv-837) (D. Nev.) 

An organization collecting signatures to put a constitutional 

amendment on Nevada’s ballot received a court-ordered extension 

of the due date during a global infectious pandemic, which triggered state-ordered social distancing, on a finding of diligence in 

collecting signatures before social distancing went into effect. An 

organization seeking the recall of Nevada’s governor did not receive 

a deadline extension on a finding that it collected few signatures before social-distancing requirements. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Ballot measure; Covid-19; 

getting on the ballot. 

Because of required social distancing in Nevada early in the global Covid-19 

infectious pandemic, an organization seeking a proposed amendment to Nevada’s constitution received court-ordered relief from the ballot-petition filing deadline from a Reno district judge, but an organization seeking recall of 

the governor did not receive relief from a Las Vegas district judge. The organizations’ different levels of success in obtaining ballot-petition signatures 

while they could were distinguishing facts in the two cases. 

Reno 

Fair Maps Nevada—which was proposing an amendment to Nevada’s constitution to create an independent redistricting commission for Nevada’s legislature and its representation in Congress—and three voters filed a federal 

complaint in the District of Nevada’s Reno courthouse on May 6, 2020, seeking modifications to ballot-petition requirements: (1) an extension of the 

deadline, (2) permission to circulate petitions electronically, and (3) the validity of electronic signatures.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction2

 and a motion to expedite briefing.3

On the following day, Judge Miranda M. Du granted the motion to expedite briefing and ordered briefing completed by May 19.4

 An organization 

1. Complaint, Fair Maps Nev. v. Cegavske, No. 3:20-cv-271 (D. Nev. May 6, 2020), D.E. 

1. See generally Bill Dentzer, Nevada Redistricting Group Files Amended Petition, Las Vegas 

Rev.-J., Jan. 8, 2020, at B3 (reporting on earlier state-court litigation over whether a description of the proposal was vague and misleading). 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Fair Maps Nev., No. 3:20-cv-271 (D. Nev. May 6, 

2020), D.E. 2. 

3. Briefing Motion, id. (May 6, 2020), D.E. 3. 

4. Docket Sheet, id. (May 6, 2020) [hereinafter Fair Maps Nev. Docket Sheet] (minute 

order, D.E. 6). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Du for this report by telephone on August 20, 2020. 
Suits to Extend Deadlines for Ballot-Petition Signatures in Nevada During a Pandemic 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/6/2023 

and a voter moved to intervene as defendants on May 13,5 and Judge Du ordered a response to the motion by May 18.6

Judge Du granted intervention on May 207 and held a telephonic hearing 

on the injunction motion on May 21.8 The hearing was telephonic because of 

the Covid-19 pandemic.9

On May 29, Judge Du granted the plaintiffs relief with respect to the 

deadline but not with respect to modifications in signature technology.10

(1) “[T]he Court finds Plaintiffs have been reasonably diligent in attempting 

to collect signatures given the circumstances.”11 (2) “Fair Maps will not get its 

Initiative on the November ballot without an extension of the Deadline 

and/or a waiver of the In-Person Requirements because it has not collected 

enough signatures.”12 (3) “Plaintiffs were prohibited from collecting signatures during [the state’s stay-at-home order because of the pandemic], so it is 

both unreasonable and unfair not to extend a statutory deadline for a corresponding period of time.”13 (4) Constitutional harm outweighs the defendants’ proffered interest of severe inconvenience.14 (5) But the defendants’ 

“proffered governmental interest of preventing fraud is more clearly articulated and better supported as to the In-Person Requirements. . . . Even 

though there are some five months until the election, rolling out and testing 

a new electronic system for signature collection and verification between 

now and then will take some time.”15

The parties sought Judge Du’s approval of a consent decree on June 8.16

She issued the consent decree on the following day; it extended the deadline 

from June 24 to August 3.17

Las Vegas 

In Las Vegas, Fight for Nevada, which sought the recall of Nevada’s governor, filed a federal complaint on Monday, May 11, seeking an extension of 

time to file ballot-petition signatures to put the recall question on the ballot: 

“an extension of the May 14 deadline by a number of days equal to the duration of the State of Emergency declared on March 12, 2020.”18 On Tuesday, 

5. Intervention Motion, Fair Maps Nev., No. 3:20-cv-271 (D. Nev. May 13, 2020), 

D.E. 15. 

6. Fair Maps Nev. Docket Sheet, supra note 4 (minute order, D.E. 18). 

7. Opinion, Fair Maps Nev., No. 3:20-cv-271 (D. Nev. May 20, 2020), D.E. 36, 2020 WL 

8188427. 

8. Fair Maps Nev. Docket Sheet, supra note 4 (minute order, D.E. 38). 

9. Interview with Hon. Miranda M. Du, Aug. 20, 2020. 

10. Opinion, Fair Maps Nev., No. 3:20-cv-271 (D. Nev. May 29, 2020), D.E. 44, 2020 WL 

2798018. 

11. Id. at 21. 

12. Id. at 24. 

13. Id. at 44. 

14. Id. 

15. Id. at 29–30. 

16. Consent Decree Motion, id. (June 8, 2020), D.E. 47. 

17. Consent Decree, id. (June 9, 2020), D.E. 48. 

18. Complaint at 5, Fight for Nev. v. Cegavske, No. 2:20-cv-837 (D. Nev. May 11, 2020), 
Suits to Extend Deadlines for Ballot-Petition Signatures in Nevada During a Pandemic 

Federal Judicial Center 7/6/2023 3

May 12, the plaintiff organization filed a motion for a preliminary injunction 

or a temporary restraining order.19 That day, Judge Richard F. Boulware II 

ordered the defendant secretary of state to respond by 10:00 a.m. on 

Wednesday.20 On Wednesday, Judge Boulware ordered a reply by 4:00 p.m. 

that day.21 On Thursday, Judge Boulware set the case for oral argument at 

4:00 p.m. that day.22

Judge Boulware observed that conducting the argument on video worked 

well.23 Because of Covid-19, video arguments became routine, and they had 

some advantages.24 Remarks tended to be shorter and interrupted less often.25

They often were easier for court reporters to transcribe.26

Judge Boulware denied the plaintiff immediate relief on May 26.27 He was 

not convinced that the plaintiff had a federally protected right to file a recall 

petition, and the deadline was not a severe burden to an organization that 

had collected only 6.5% of the signatures necessary during the first half of the 

ninety-day collection period.28

The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case on the day of the ruling.29

On reflection, Judge Boulware concluded that Covid-19 cases presented 

unique circumstances, but not so unique that there were not answers in the 

law.30

D.E. 1; Fight for Nev. v. Cegavske, 460 F. Supp. 3d 1049, 1052 (D. Nev. 2020). 

19. Motion, Fight for Nev., No. 2:20-cv-837 (D. Nev. May 12, 2020), D.E. 5; Fight for Nev., 

460 F. Supp. 3d at 1052. 

20. Docket Sheet, Fight for Nev., No. 2:20-cv-837 (D. Nev. May 11, 2020) [hereinafter

Fight for Nev. Docket Sheet] (minute order, D.E. 7). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Boulware for this report by telephone on August 19, 

2020. 

21. Fight for Nev. Docket Sheet, supra note 20 (minute order, D.E. 12). 

22. Id. (minute order, D.E. 15); Fight for Nev., 460 F. Supp. 3d at 1052. 

23. Interview with Hon. Richard F. Boulware II, Aug. 19, 2020. 

24. Id. 

25. Id. 

26. Id. 

27. Fight for Nev., 460 F. Supp. 3d 1049; see Colton Lochhead, Judge Denies Sisolak Recall 

Group More Time to Gather Signatures, Las Vegas Rev.-J., May 16, 2020, at B1. 

28. Fight for Nev., 460 F. Supp. 3d at 1052, 1054, 1058. 

29. Notice, Fight for Nev. v. Cegavske, No. 2:20-cv-837 (D. Nev. May 26, 2020), D.E. 18. 

30. Interview with Hon. Richard F. Boulware II, Aug. 19, 2020.