NRS
293.182 Written challenges concerning qualifications of candidates;
enforcement in preelection actions.
1. After a person files a declaration of
candidacy to be a candidate for an office, and not later than 5 days after the
last day the person may withdraw his or her candidacy pursuant to NRS 293.202, an elector may file with the
filing officer for the office a written challenge of the person on the grounds
that the person fails to meet any qualification required for the office
pursuant to the Constitution or laws of this State. Before accepting the
challenge from the elector, the filing officer shall notify the elector that if
the challenge is found by a court to be frivolous, the elector may be required
to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs of the person who is
being challenged.
2. A challenge filed pursuant to
subsection 1 must:
(a) Indicate each qualification the person fails
to meet;
(b) Have attached all documentation and evidence
supporting the challenge; and
(c) Be in the form of an affidavit, signed by the
elector under penalty of perjury.
3. Upon receipt of a challenge pursuant to
subsection 1:
(a) The Secretary of State shall immediately
transmit the challenge to the Attorney General.
(b) A filing officer other than the Secretary of
State shall immediately transmit the challenge to the district attorney.
4. If the Attorney General or district
attorney determines that probable cause exists to support the challenge, the
Attorney General or district attorney shall, not later than 5 working days
after receiving the challenge, petition a court of competent jurisdiction to
order the person to appear before the court. Upon receipt of such a petition,
the court shall enter an order directing the person to appear before the court
at a hearing, at a time and place to be fixed by the court in the order, to
show cause why the challenge is not valid. A certified copy of the order must
be served upon the person. The court shall give priority to such proceedings
over all other matters pending with the court, except for criminal proceedings.
5. If, at the hearing, the court
determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenge is valid or
that the person otherwise fails to meet any qualification required for the
office pursuant to the Constitution or laws of this State, or if the person
fails to appear at the hearing, the person is subject to the provisions of NRS 293.2045.
6. If, at the hearing, the court
determines that the challenge is frivolous, the court may order the elector who
filed the challenge to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs of
the person who was challenged.
(Added to NRS by 2001,
671; A 2017,
3301; 2019,
3379)
Notes of Decisions
Williams v. Clark Cnty. Dist. Attorney, 50 P.3d 536 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 43× “After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order sustaining the challenge to Williams' candidacy under NRS 293.182, and directed the Clark County Registrar of Voters to remove Williams' name from the September 2002 ballot.”
Miller v. Burk, 188 P.3d 1112 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 13× “After real parties in interest filed their candidacies, petitioners submitted to the appropriate filing officers, under NRS 293.182, written challenges to real parties in interest’s qualifications.”
DeStefano v. Berkus, 119 P.3d 1238 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 22× “*628 OPINION 1 Per Curiam: In this appeal, we determine whether the enactment of NRS 293.182 in 2001, by setting forth a new procedure by which election candidates’ qualifications may be contested, rendered invalid the district court’s authority to hear declaratory relief…”
Child v. Lomax, 188 P.3d 1103 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 12× “After Buckley declared her candidacy, on June 4, 2008, petitioner Kevin Child, a Nevada elector, submitted to the Clark County Registrar of Voters an NRS 293.182 written challenge to Buckley’s qualifications for office, in which he alleged that Buckley was not qualified to run…”
Hansen v. Bell, 52 P.3d 938 (Nev. 2002).
“110 and the certification requirement under NRS 289.550. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court and remand this matter with instructions for the district court to forthwith direct the Clark County Registrar of Voters to restore Hansen’s name on the November 2002…”
Chattah v. Cegavske (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (01 1947A Agapz District Attorney, not the Secretary, will investigate if an elector timely challenges a candidate's qualifications, see NRS 293.182 (making it incumbent on an elector to file a challenge within that statute's deadline).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.182(1) — 5 cases
Williams v. Clark Cnty. Dist. Attorney, 50 P.3d 536 (Nev. 2002).
“After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order sustaining the challenge to Williams' candidacy under NRS 293.182, and directed the Clark County Registrar of Voters to remove Williams' name from the September 2002 ballot.”
Miller v. Burk, 188 P.3d 1112 (Nev. 2008).
“After real parties in interest filed their candidacies, petitioners submitted to the appropriate filing officers, under NRS 293.182, written challenges to real parties in interest’s qualifications.”
DeStefano v. Berkus, 119 P.3d 1238 (Nev. 2005).
“*628 OPINION 1 Per Curiam: In this appeal, we determine whether the enactment of NRS 293.182 in 2001, by setting forth a new procedure by which election candidates’ qualifications may be contested, rendered invalid the district court’s authority to hear declaratory relief…”
Child v. Lomax, 188 P.3d 1103 (Nev. 2008).
“After Buckley declared her candidacy, on June 4, 2008, petitioner Kevin Child, a Nevada elector, submitted to the Clark County Registrar of Voters an NRS 293.182 written challenge to Buckley’s qualifications for office, in which he alleged that Buckley was not qualified to run…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.182(2) — 1 case
Williams v. Clark Cnty. Dist. Attorney, 50 P.3d 536 (Nev. 2002).
“After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order sustaining the challenge to Williams' candidacy under NRS 293.182, and directed the Clark County Registrar of Voters to remove Williams' name from the September 2002 ballot.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.182(3)(a) — 1 case
Miller v. Burk, 188 P.3d 1112 (Nev. 2008).
“After real parties in interest filed their candidacies, petitioners submitted to the appropriate filing officers, under NRS 293.182, written challenges to real parties in interest’s qualifications.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.182(4) — 4 cases
Williams v. Clark Cnty. Dist. Attorney, 50 P.3d 536 (Nev. 2002).
“After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order sustaining the challenge to Williams' candidacy under NRS 293.182, and directed the Clark County Registrar of Voters to remove Williams' name from the September 2002 ballot.”
Miller v. Burk, 188 P.3d 1112 (Nev. 2008).
“After real parties in interest filed their candidacies, petitioners submitted to the appropriate filing officers, under NRS 293.182, written challenges to real parties in interest’s qualifications.”
Child v. Lomax, 188 P.3d 1103 (Nev. 2008).
“After Buckley declared her candidacy, on June 4, 2008, petitioner Kevin Child, a Nevada elector, submitted to the Clark County Registrar of Voters an NRS 293.182 written challenge to Buckley’s qualifications for office, in which he alleged that Buckley was not qualified to run…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.182(5) — 1 case
DeStefano v. Berkus, 119 P.3d 1238 (Nev. 2005).
“*628 OPINION 1 Per Curiam: In this appeal, we determine whether the enactment of NRS 293.182 in 2001, by setting forth a new procedure by which election candidates’ qualifications may be contested, rendered invalid the district court’s authority to hear declaratory relief…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 293.182(5)(a) — 1 case
Miller v. Burk, 188 P.3d 1112 (Nev. 2008).
“After real parties in interest filed their candidacies, petitioners submitted to the appropriate filing officers, under NRS 293.182, written challenges to real parties in interest’s qualifications.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.