NRS
306.040 Notification that number of signatures is sufficient; procedure
for striking name from petition within certain time after completion of
signature verification; issuance of call for special election; legal challenge
to petition.
1. Upon determining that the number of
signatures on a petition to recall is sufficient pursuant to NRS 293.1276 to 293.1279, inclusive, the Secretary of
State shall notify the county clerk, the filing officer and the public officer
who is the subject of the petition.
2. A person who signs a petition to recall
may request the filing officer to strike the person’s name from the petition on
or before the date that is the later of:
(a) Ten days, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays
excluded, after the verification of signatures is complete; or
(b) The date a complaint is filed pursuant to
subsection 6.
3. If the filing officer receives a request
pursuant to subsection 2, the filing officer must strike the name of the person
from the petition. If the filing officer receives a sufficient number of
requests to strike names from the petition such that the petition no longer
contains enough valid signatures, the filing officer shall not issue a call for
a special election, and a special election must not be held to recall the
public officer who is the subject of the petition.
4. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 3, not sooner than 20 days and not later than 30 days, Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays excluded, after the Secretary of State completes the
notification required by subsection 1, if a complaint is not filed pursuant to
subsection 6, the filing officer shall issue a call for a special election in
the jurisdiction in which the public officer who is the subject of the petition
was elected to determine whether the people will recall the public officer.
5. The call for a special election
pursuant to subsection 4 or 7 must include, without limitation:
(a) The last day on which a person may register
to vote in order to qualify to vote in the special election pursuant to NRS 293.560 or 293C.527; and
(b) The last day on which a petition to nominate
other candidates for the office may be filed.
6. The legal sufficiency of the petition,
including without limitation, the validity of signatures on the petition, may
be challenged by filing a complaint in district court not later than 15 days,
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excluded, after the Secretary of State
completes the notification required by subsection 1. All affidavits and
documents in support of the challenge must be filed with the complaint. The
court shall set the matter for hearing not later than 30 days after the
complaint is filed and shall give priority to such a complaint over all other
matters pending with the court, except for criminal proceedings.
7. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, if
the court determines that the petition is legally sufficient, it shall order
the filing officer to issue a call for a special election in the jurisdiction
in which the public officer who is the subject of the petition was elected to
determine whether the people will recall the public officer. If the court
determines that the petition is not legally sufficient, it shall order the
filing officer to cease any further proceedings regarding the petition.
(Added to NRS by 1960,
282; A 1963,
1386; 1981,
23; 1985,
1115; 1987,
698, 1376;
1991,
2215; 1993,
2408; 1997,
767; 1999,
3563; 2001,
650; 2011,
2123; 2019,
1658, 4125;
2020,
32nd Special Session, 64; 2021,
1261)
RESIGNATIONS DURING PROCEEDINGS FOR RECALL
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1965–2019 · leading case:
Foley v. Kennedy, 885 P.2d 583 (Nev. 1994).
Foley v. Kennedy, 885 P.2d 583 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 2× “At the time, NRS 306.040 required the Registrar to automatically submit the matter to the district court for a sufficiency hearing.”
Cleland v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 552 P.2d 488 (Nev. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Thereafter, the district court issued a writ of mandamus directing appellant City Clerk to issue a call for a special election in accordance with NRS 306.040(2). Appellant contends the district court 1) lacked jurisdiction to conduct the sufficiency and validation hearings, and…”
Batchelor v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 408 P.2d 239 (Nev. 1965).
· cites it 2× “NRS 306.040 (2). Batchelor’s contention that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in so ruling rests upon the premise that the recall petition is fatally defective in two respects: First, because it was verified as having the correct number of signatures of electors who…”
Silberkraus v. Woodhouse (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 10× “' This court will not consider whether NRS 306.040 violates the Nevada Constitution Given the results of the full verification, this court does not need to consider whether strike requests, as allowed by NRS 306.”
Silberkraus v. Woodhouse (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 10× “' This court will not consider whether NRS 306.040 violates the Nevada Constitution Given the results of the full verification, this court does not need to consider whether strike requests, as allowed by NRS 306.”
Cleland v. Eighth Jd Ct., Cty. of Clark, Dept. v., 552 P.2d 488 (Nev. 1976).
· cites it 3× “Hearings to determine the sufficiency and validity of respondent's petitions for recall were conducted pursuant to NRS 306.040. Petitioners, Mayor and two Councilmen of the City of North Las Vegas, moved for and were denied intervention in those hearings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 306.040(1) — 2 cases
Batchelor v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 408 P.2d 239 (Nev. 1965).
“NRS 306.040 (2). Batchelor’s contention that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in so ruling rests upon the premise that the recall petition is fatally defective in two respects: First, because it was verified as having the correct number of signatures of electors who…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 306.040(2) — 4 cases
Cleland v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 552 P.2d 488 (Nev. 1976).
“Thereafter, the district court issued a writ of mandamus directing appellant City Clerk to issue a call for a special election in accordance with NRS 306.040(2). Appellant contends the district court 1) lacked jurisdiction to conduct the sufficiency and validation hearings, and…”
Silberkraus v. Woodhouse (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2019).
“' This court will not consider whether NRS 306.040 violates the Nevada Constitution Given the results of the full verification, this court does not need to consider whether strike requests, as allowed by NRS 306.”
Silberkraus v. Woodhouse (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2019).
“' This court will not consider whether NRS 306.040 violates the Nevada Constitution Given the results of the full verification, this court does not need to consider whether strike requests, as allowed by NRS 306.”
Cleland v. Eighth Jd Ct., Cty. of Clark, Dept. v., 552 P.2d 488 (Nev. 1976).
“Hearings to determine the sufficiency and validity of respondent's petitions for recall were conducted pursuant to NRS 306.040. Petitioners, Mayor and two Councilmen of the City of North Las Vegas, moved for and were denied intervention in those hearings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 306.040(5) — 2 cases
Silberkraus v. Woodhouse (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2019).
“' This court will not consider whether NRS 306.040 violates the Nevada Constitution Given the results of the full verification, this court does not need to consider whether strike requests, as allowed by NRS 306.”
Silberkraus v. Woodhouse (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2019).
“' This court will not consider whether NRS 306.040 violates the Nevada Constitution Given the results of the full verification, this court does not need to consider whether strike requests, as allowed by NRS 306.”
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.