Aaron Ford Appeals Dismissal of Nevada Alternate Electors Case After Judge Faults His Office for Withholding Evidence

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford has appealed a Clark County District Court order dismissing felony charges against six Republicans who signed an alternate electoral certificate in December 2020, after Judge Mary Kay Holthus ruled that prosecutors failed to prove the required intent and withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.

In an order filed October 2, 2026 (see below), Holthus granted the defendants’ petitions for writs of habeas corpus in State of Nevada v. James Walter DeGraffenreid III, et al. The six defendants—Nevada Republican Party Chairman Michael McDonald, former Clark County GOP Chairman Jesse Law, Jim DeGraffenreid, Jim Hindle, Shawn Meehan, and Eileen Rice—had been charged under NRS 239.330 (offering a false instrument for filing) and NRS 205.110 (uttering a forged instrument).

This is the second dismissal of the case by Holthus. She previously dismissed it in 2024 on venue grounds; the Nevada Supreme Court reversed that decision in November 2025 and returned the matter to Clark County. 

As the California Globe previously reported in its coverage of the latest ruling, the judge again faulted Attorney General Aaron Ford’s office for withholding and editing material evidence before the grand jury.

Insufficient Evidence of Intent

Holthus found that the State did not present substantial and competent evidence from which the grand jury could reasonably infer the defendants acted with fraudulent intent or sought to pass off the GOP certificate as Nevada’s official electoral document.

In paragraph 14 of the order, the court wrote that evidence the State did not present to the grand jury “further reinforces the conclusion that Defendants acted openly and consistently with their stated purpose of preserving ongoing election challenges, rather than with an intent to deceive.” 

Paragraph 37 states that even after considering the full record and the State’s supplemental briefing, prosecutors “failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable grand jury could infer the requisite intent to defraud.”

The court noted that the defendants held a televised ceremony, publicly explained their purpose, and submitted documents that differed in multiple visible ways from the official certificates prepared by the Secretary of State. Those differences included the absence of the Nevada State Seal, a different return address, and the lack of accompanying Certificates of Ascertainment and Final Determination.

Documents Lacked Ability to Be Filed

As an independent basis for dismissing the NRS 239.330 charges, Holthus concluded the GOP certificate did not have the present ability to be filed or recorded under state or federal law. 

Paragraph 43 records testimony from Deputy Secretary of State Mark Wlaschin, who described the documents to the grand jury as “essentially invalid” “bizarro documents” that “did not meet the statutory requirements for filing.” National Archives personnel similarly recognized the certificate was not an official state record.

Attorney General’s Prior Statements and Legislative Context

Paragraph 33 of the order notes that “Nevada’s Attorney General publicly recognized that existing Nevada law did not expressly criminalize the conduct at issue and thereafter supported legislation specifically intended to criminalize the submission of alternate electoral certificates.” In May 2023, Attorney General Aaron Ford testified that current state statutes “did not directly address the conduct in question” while supporting Senate Bill 133, which would have created a specific criminal offense. That bill and a later version were vetoed by Governor Joe Lombardo.

The court treated these statements as additional context supporting its conclusion that the statutes charged were not plainly intended to cover the conduct alleged. Ford’s office pursued the charges under existing general statutes despite that public acknowledgment, then, as the court found, withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.

Failure to Present Exculpatory Evidence

Holthus also ruled that the indictment must be dismissed because the State failed to present known material exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, as required under Nevada Supreme Court precedent in Chasing Horse. 

The omitted evidence included a December 2020 letter from defense counsel explaining that the time to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the Nevada Supreme Court’s December 8, 2020, decision had not yet expired, as well as references to the 1960 Hawaii precedent for alternate electors. 

The court found that presenting testimony suggesting the Nevada Supreme Court ruling ended all challenges, without the countervailing evidence, created a distorted picture on the central issue of intent. 

Paragraph 65 of the order addresses the independent basis for dismissal arising from this failure to present exculpatory evidence.

Appeal and Prior Proceedings

Ford’s office has appealed the dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court. In a statement, Ford said he disagreed with the ruling and believes the high court will reverse it, asserting that the defendants “attempted to undermine the results of Nevada’s free and fair election.”

The case has a lengthy procedural history. After the 2024 venue dismissal, Ford’s office refiled charges in Carson City while pursuing the appeal of the Clark County dismissal. Defense attorneys have previously described the venue choices as an effort to secure a more favorable jury pool.

 Similar alternate-elector prosecutions in Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia have also been dismissed or significantly narrowed.

Defendants have maintained that their actions were open political and legal advocacy, consistent with historical practice in contested elections. Critics of the prosecution, including defense counsel, have characterized the continued pursuit of the case—after Ford’s public acknowledgment that no existing statute directly addressed the conduct and amid findings of withheld evidence—as politically driven lawfare rather than a straightforward application of existing law. 

Ford, who is running for governor, has framed the prosecution as necessary to protect election integrity. Ford’s office has not provided comment on the costs of the ongoing litigation or their failure to provide exculpatory evidence. 

The order’s findings on intent, the AG’s prior statements, and the withholding of exculpatory evidence form the core of the latest dismissal.