Reno, NV – On June 12, 2025, a concerned Renoite fired off a pointed letter to Nevada’s U.S. Attorney Sigal Chattah, alleging that the state’s mail ballot system flouts the federal Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. His name? Oscar Williams. His grievance? Nevada’s ballot return envelopes expose voters’ signature, name, and address; ripe pickings for identity thieves and forgers. With a stack of supporting documents, including responses from Washoe County and the Secretary of State, Williams lays bare a system that prioritizes convenience over security, leaving voters vulnerable to becoming a victim.
Williams is not out on a limb here. The U.S. Department of Justice warns:
With enough identifying information about an individual, a criminal can take over that individual’s identity to conduct a wide range of crimes. For example:
• False applications for loans and credit cards,
• Fraudulent withdrawals from bank accounts,
• Fraudulent use of telephone calling cards or online accounts, or
• Obtaining other goods or privileges which the criminal might be denied if he were to use his real name
Identity theft and forgery goes well beyond elections, sometimes utilizing high tech methods, according to a recent report at TechSpot by Skye Jacobs, stating:
“Cybercriminals are using AI-driven bots to impersonate students, enroll in online college courses, and divert financial aid, leaving real individuals with stolen identities and fraudulent debt.”
The stakes are high. In 2022, the total of victim losses due to identity theft in Nevada amounted to $127,315,394, according to the FBI’s 2022 Internet Crime Report, page 26. Down to the dollar!
Williams’ complaint hinges on a stark design shift. Historically, mail ballots featured a security flap concealing signatures, safeguarding voter privacy. But in recent elections, the Secretary of State moved the signature block to below the privacy flap, fully exposing it. Washoe County Chief Deputy District Attorney Mary Kandaras claimed this was due to laser-cutting malfunctions when opening the envelopes. The Secretary’s own investigator, Darrell K. Harris, admits no statutory violation but concedes a legislative fix is needed, conveniently sidestepping the unilateral change already made.
Williams drills down, citing NRS 293.2696 that mandates voting systems “secure to each voter privacy and independence.” Williams argues his ballot is a commercial document per state and federal law that deserves protection akin to that of sensitive financial documents. And that the current setup, lacking warnings about identity theft risks, flies in the face of this.
Voters who return a mail ballot are being duped with a false sense of security. In contrast, the NVease.gov online portal offers three methods to return a cast electronic (PDF) ballot with three levels of security as follows:
The rub? NVease.gov fails to compare in-person voting, with the greatest level of security possible, especially when combined with picture ID with signature and having to answer basic identity questions from a poll worker. NVease.gov also fails to compare the security of standard mail ballots, too, as if the universal option doesn’t exist.
Similar to NVease.gov’s failure to announce in-person voting or official mail voting as more secure options, the ballot return envelope does not warn of any risks, or that another method of voting carries less risk. The lack of a proper warning of potential identity theft when mailing a ballot is a violation of Consumer Protection rights pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 7001 (B).
The evidence is clear: The 2020, 2022, and 2024 envelopes chart this decline of security, from hidden signatures to blatant exposure. Voter registration and verification postcards further illustrate the system’s reliance on visible signatures, amplifying the threat.
Kandaras went on to defend the exposed signature by claiming it’s public record under Nevada law because voter rosters are inspectable by electors. Yet, Williams counters that public inspection of signatures is a form of audit after a ballot has been accepted or rejected, that an inspection must be requested, an inspection must be performed in a controlled environment, and that access to signature images is not the same as exposed signatures on the envelope before the envelope is even received and processed. Reproduction of the signature roster is prohibited, but it’s no-holds-barred when it comes to signatures on a ballot return envelope.
The responses from Kandaras and Harris reveal a troubling disconnect. Kandaras leans on statutory interpretation, ignoring federal identity protection laws, while Harris deflects responsibility to lawmakers, ignoring the Secretary’s role in initiating the change. Both miss the core issue: an exposed signature isn’t just a procedural hiccup, it’s a breach of trust, enabling fraud that could lead to financial loss, loss of government benefits, unexpected debts, and who knows what else?
Let’s face it. Instead of instilling confidence in the outcome of elections, the Secretary is taking Nevadans in the opposite direction. Exposing signatures is a self-inflicted wound, not a legal mandate, and it has left voters’ sensitive credentials out-in-the-open without consent.
The 2024 return envelope design and verification and address change postcards, all approved by the Secretary, underscore a pattern of prioritizing efficiency over security. For those who care about the protection of their identity when mailing their cast ballot, the concerns are crystal clear:
• Identity Theft Risk: Exposed signatures invite Dark Web exploitation.
• Forgery Potential: Double-voting incidents signal unchecked fraud.
• Privacy Violation: NRS 293.2696’s privacy mandate is ignored.
• Unilateral Change: The Secretary altered design without voter consent or statutory basis, flaunting the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.
• Errant Legislature: Recently vetoed bills such as AB496 and AB499 indicate an ongoing threat of identity exposure without safeguards being posed by legislators.
Instead of being accurate and safe to use, Nevada’s return ballot envelopes endanger voters, turning the right of suffrage—a sacred civic duty—into a gamble with identity and the integrity of elections. The ultimate outcome being, voters feel disenfranchised and/or disincentivized to participate in elections.
State officials have fumbled the ball, and the federal government can’t afford to let this slide. The people deserve better: privacy envelopes, protected identities, and a process they can trust. Sigal Chattah and federal authorities must step in, not as bureaucratic bystanders but as guardians against the aiding and abetting of identity theft and forgery being perpetrated in Nevada’s elections.
——————————————————————————
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!