Pastor Andy Thompson’s Election Fight Hits a Wall, But He’s Punching Back with Federal Fire

Folks in Nevada, if you’ve been following Pastor Andy Michael Thompson’s one-man crusade against what he calls sloppy election handling, buckle up for the latest twist. This Henderson resident, going solo without a lawyer, just got a double denial from a federal magistrate judge on November 7, 2025. But true to form, Thompson isn’t taking it lying down. He’s fired off an objection under Rule 72(a), basically asking the district judge to step in and fix what he sees as a mess of contradictions. It’s like watching a David versus Goliath rematch, where Goliath is the state bureaucracy, and David has the Constitution in his slingshot. Let’s break this down without the legal jargon overload, because at the end of the day, this is about whether our votes get the transparency they deserve.

Remember, Thompson’s beef started with claims that Nevada wiped out key 2024 election data too soon, violating federal law that says those records must hang around for 22 months. He’s suing the Secretary of State in U.S. District Court (case 2:25-cv-01284-CDS-EJY), pointing fingers at software updates to Dominion Voting Systems that allegedly overwrote ballot images, logs, and other digital proof from last year’s vote. He filed two motions: one to force the state to hand over Dominion contracts and tech docs, and another for sanctions over what he calls “spoliation”, that’s destroying evidence you’re supposed to keep safe.

Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah shut both down flat. In her order on the motion to compel (ECF 23), she said no dice because the parties haven’t had their required chat under Rule 26(f), think of it as a pre-discovery huddle to set ground rules. She added that Thompson didn’t show “good cause” for jumping the gun on discovery, even though he argued those documents are the only way to prove what the state promised to preserve. The judge noted the state has a duty to keep evidence once litigation’s on the horizon, and she’s “confident” they’re doing just that. On the sanctions motion (ECF 24), she called it “premature,” saying Thompson can’t prove spoliation without actual discovery showing stuff was destroyed. She quoted cases emphasizing that spoliation means intentional or negligent loss of relevant evidence, but insisted there’s no proof yet, despite Thompson’s pile of exhibits.

Here’s where it gets absurd, like a referee calling a foul but then saying the game doesn’t start until next week. The judge admits the state is the “sole source” of this evidence and “has a duty to preserve” it, especially since they’re smack in the middle of a lawsuit. Yet, she denies Thompson’s requests to enforce that duty right now. Thompson, in his own words from an update he shared, calls these grounds “laughable” and says the Secretary of State is “on record admitting to spoliation; it’s literally in their own words.” He’s not wrong to highlight the irony, if the state’s so trustworthy, why not just produce the contracts and prove no harm was done?

In his Rule 72(a) objection, a 29-page filing, Thompson doubles down. He argues the denials are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” because they ignore the record. For instance, he points to an email from Chief Deputy Attorney General Gregory D. Ott on July 10, 2025, warning that updates to Dominion’s version 5.20 would start July 21 and run through September 30, right after Thompson’s federal summons dropped on July 15. That’s like announcing you’re cleaning out the garage while someone’s suing you over what’s inside it. His supplemental brief, 16 pages strong, lays out “three judicial admissions” of destruction: that email, plus other state statements confirming the overwrite happened after notice of his lawsuits, including his ongoing state Supreme Court appeal (No. 90846).

Thompson ties this back to federal statute 52 U.S.C. § 20701, which mandates keeping election records intact. He says the magistrate’s confidence in the state clashes with their own admissions of authorizing the wipe-out. And he’s got a point about timing, if litigation was “foreseeable,” as the judge’s own cited cases require for preservation duties, why let the updates roll? It’s a head-scratcher, especially in a state where we pride ourselves on fair play, from poker tables to polling places.

This isn’t just legal ping-pong; it’s about core principles in our founding document. The Constitution’s Guarantee Clause promises a republican form of government, meaning power from the people through honest elections. If voters like Thompson can’t get straight answers on whether data was preserved, or force the issue when laws say it should be, how do we know the system’s working as intended? Thompson’s push echoes broader concerns about electronic voting: great for speed, but what if the digital trail vanishes like a bad bet in Vegas? He’s not alleging fraud outright, but questioning why the state wouldn’t back up data before updating, especially with federal rules staring them down.

Of course, the state might argue this is all routine maintenance, nothing sinister. But Thompson’s filings beg the question: If it’s so innocent, hand over the contracts and let’s see the fine print on data preservation. The magistrate mentioned prior worries about Thompson’s “standing” to sue (from ECF 17), hinting the whole case might fizzle if he can’t prove personal harm. Yet, by denying early discovery, the court might be creating a catch-22, you need evidence to prove standing, but you can’t get evidence without discovery.

Thompson’s not backing off, and his pro se stamina is something to admire in a world where big institutions often steamroll the little guy. This federal flap runs parallel to his state appeal, where he’s challenging rules that bar voters from contesting elections without naming a candidate. Together, they paint a picture of a system that could use more sunlight.

So, what’s the takeaway here? We’ve got a voter spotlighting potential gaps in election safeguards, a court saying “not yet” on enforcement, and Thompson appealing to higher authority. It reminds us that democracy isn’t a spectator sport. Why not check your county’s election office website for their data policies? Or drop a line to the Secretary of State asking about those election software updates, politely, of course. After all, if our votes are the chips in this high-stakes game, shouldn’t we demand to see the deck? Keep an eye on this case; it might just force some much-needed clarity on how Nevada counts what counts. What if the next election’s integrity hangs on questions like these?

Speak Up, Nevada! What’s on Your Mind? Send us your opinion!

Got the inside scoop on something happening in Nevada? Or the country? Do you have thoughts about life in Nevada that are too good to keep to yourself? Whether it’s a hot take on our politics, crime, education, or even the secret to surviving our summers, we’re all ears! Swing them our way at editor@thenevadaglobe.com. Come on, give us the scoop on what makes Nevada tick—or what ticks you off. Let’s make some noise and have some fun with it!