A Voter’s Lone Stand: Pastor Andy Thompson Takes on Nevada’s Election System in Supreme Court Appeal

Imagine you’re at a poker table in Vegas, and the dealer says you can’t question the shuffle unless you point fingers at another player. Sounds a bit off, right? That’s the kind of twist Pastor Andy Michael Thompson, a regular guy from Henderson, is fighting in his appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. Thompson, representing himself without a fancy lawyer, filed this opening brief challenging how the state runs its elections. It’s not about who won or lost a race, but about whether everyday voters like you and me can even ask if the game was fair. Let’s break this down simply, because if the system’s broken, we all lose our chips.

Thompson’s case started in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, where Judge Jacob A. Reynolds dismissed it back in June 2025. Now, Thompson’s appealing that decision, arguing the lower court got it wrong on some key laws. At the heart is NRS 293.042, a Nevada statute that spells out what counts as an “election contest.” Thompson says this law gives voters the right to challenge election results if something smells fishy, like problems with how votes are counted or records kept. But the district court ruled he couldn’t proceed because he didn’t name a specific candidate as a defendant. Thompson calls that a misreading, one that basically locks voters out unless they’re suing someone who ran for office.

What sparked this? Thompson is contesting the validity of Ballot Questions 3 and 6 from a recent election. For those who need a refresher, Question 3 was about changing Nevada’s voting to open primaries and ranked-choice voting, a system where you rank candidates like picking your top ice cream flavors. Question 6 dealt with enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution. Thompson isn’t just griping about the outcomes; he’s pointing to bigger issues like “opaque data handling” and electronic vote tabulation without proper audits. He claims the state isn’t preserving forensic records, meaning the digital trails that could prove everything was on the up-and-up. And get this: he invokes federal law, 52 U.S.C. § 20701, which requires keeping election records for 22 months, arguing Nevada’s dropping the ball there too.

Now, why does Thompson think this is such a big deal? He ties it to the U.S. Constitution’s Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4. That’s the part where the federal government promises every state a “republican form of government” – not the political party, but a system where power comes from the people through fair elections. Thompson argues that if elections aren’t transparent and auditable, it’s like building a house on sand; the whole structure wobbles. He also brings in due process from the 14th Amendment, saying voters are getting shortchanged if they can’t check the math behind the results. It’s a clever angle, pointing out the absurdity of a system that claims to be by the people but hides the receipts.

If Thompson wins, it could mean a seismic shift in how Nevada handles election challenges. Right now, the state’s interpretation, per the brief, makes it tough for citizens to sue over systemic problems without dragging in a candidate. A Supreme Court reversalmight open the door for more voter-led oversight, forcing officials to keep better records and allow audits. That could boost confidence in elections, especially in a swing state like ours where every vote counts. On the flip side, if the court sides with the Secretary of State, it might set a precedent that limits challenges to only those involving specific people, not the process itself. Picture this: future elections where glitches or lost data go unquestioned because no one’s “standing” to complain. That’s the potential downside, and it’s got folks worried about erosion of trust.

Thompson’s brief also calls out what he sees as judicial slip-ups. He argues the district court wrongly applied NRCP 19, a rule about joining necessary parties to a lawsuit, to an election contest. In plain English, that’s like saying you can’t sue the casino for a rigged slot machine unless you sue the guy who hit the jackpot too. He claims this ignores the law’s intent to give voters direct standing. Plus, he hints at bias and a failure to give pro se litigants – that’s people without lawyers – a fair shake, citing cases like Haines v. Kerner that say courts should cut them some slack. It’s a reminder that not everyone can afford a suit from the Strip to fight in court.

Why should you care? Elections are the bedrock of our freedoms, straight from the Constitution we all swear by. If voters can’t peek under the hood, how do we know the engine’s running clean? Thompson’s fight highlights an absurdity: laws meant to protect democracy might be used to shield it from scrutiny. In a state where gambling’s king, we’d never tolerate a blackjack game without verifiable decks. Why should elections be different? This case could force Nevada to up its game on transparency, making sure every ballot is counted right, no smoke and mirrors.

In wrapping up, Thompson’s appeal boils down to one core idea: voters deserve a say in keeping elections honest. Whether it reshapes Nevada’s laws or sparks bigger debates, it’s a wake-up call. So, what if you dug into your local election rules? Or reached out to your representatives about better record-keeping? After all, in the Silver State, shouldn’t our votes shine as bright as the neon lights? Let’s keep asking those questions – our republic depends on it.

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!