Residents and candidates press commissioners for hand counts, allege irregularities in primary canvass

Dozens of residents, candidates and election observers used two public-comment periods on June 18 to press the Washoe County Board of Commissioners for further review of the June 9 primary results, urging hand counts and raising security and data‑accuracy concerns.

Several speakers outlined specific worries. Nicholas St. John said his analysis of Secretary of State and county data showed ballots that initially appeared under a "third party" category later being recorded in Republican and Democratic tallies; he asked the board to direct the Registrar of Voters to bring those early ballots into the chamber for a visible count. Tammy Hilt and others cited an earlier notice about roughly 15,000 mail ballots returned as undeliverable and said inaccurate voter‑mailing lists may have disenfranchised voters.

Registrar Andrew McDonald told the board the undeliverable figure represents nonvoted mail pieces returned by the postal service and placed the county's 4.6 percent rate in a national context of 3–5 percent for returned mail in typical cycles. He also described steps the office took to document and remediate issues: observers were invited to the intake area, the office implemented automatic signature verification (at a conservative confidence threshold), ran pre- and post-election testing and performed a 2 percent tabulation audit that exceeded the minimum statutory requirement. McDonald said the office found and corrected specific issues (training-mode check-ins, a poll‑pad sync error, miscellaneous misprinted ballots) and added 15 valid mail ballots to the totals after an audit on June 17.

Several commenters and some speakers at the meeting said those operational explanations were insufficient. Public remarks included direct challenges to the security of ballot‑marking devices and allegations that the ROV's procedures had allowed errors or improper handling. Some speakers proposed remedies including hand counts of paper ballots, independent audits, or investigatory panels; others urged prompt certification, saying refusal to certify would override voter intent and exceed the board's authority.

District Attorney Michael Large and county staff repeatedly framed the canvas as a statutorily required, largely ministerial duty under NRS 293.387, but they also explained the process for litigated remedies: candidates may demand a recount under NRS 293.403 within three working days after the canvass. Advocates for voter access, including representatives of nonpartisan organizations, urged certification to preserve voting rights while allowing post‑canvas recounts where the statute permits.

The board approved the canvass by a 4–1 vote later in the meeting. Several public commenters said they intended to pursue recounts or formal challenges; the ROV said it would keep supplemental documentation and a public Q&A available for the stated period.

Observers and officials agreed on one procedural point: the canvass itself documents discovered clerical errors and corrections, but it does not substitute for a court‑ordered or candidate‑requested recount. The meeting closed with the board directing the ROV to publish the supplemental packet and to remain available to answer questions in the near term.