Lawsuit Filed Against Nevada Secretary of State Over Public Records
A Las Vegas resident, Chuck Muth, has recently filed a lawsuit against Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, raising significant concerns about the handling of public records. Muth, a Republican and president of the Citizen Outreach Foundation, claims that Aguilar’s office violated Nevada’s public records law by withholding pertinent documents related to election integrity investigations.
Background on the Public Records Request
Muth’s lawsuit stems from a public records request he submitted on November 24, 2023. He sought all documents related to an investigation into a voter he alleged had committed election violations by voting both in Nevada and Texas during the 2022 election. Muth contends that the secretary of state’s office has been uncooperative and slow in responding to his requests, leading to frustration and minimal transparency.
The Voter Violation Allegation
The investigation Muth is concerned about was sparked by his filing of an election integrity report in March 2024. This complaint alleged that the voter in question had engaged in the questionable practice of voting in two states. After reviewing the complaint, the Secretary of State’s office stated that it had forwarded the case for further investigation, but did not disclose the outcomes of those inquiries initially.
Delays and Lack of Transparency
Muth alleges that the secretary of state’s office did not adhere to Nevada law, which requires a response to public records requests within five business days. Following an initial acknowledgment of his request, the office extended the deadline multiple times—from January 10 to ultimately March 13—without providing sufficient justification for these delays.
Upon eventual release of documents, Muth found some records regarding the voter’s voting history but noted that many crucial documents had been withheld, citing attorney-client privilege and personal privacy concerns. Muth firmly believes these documents are neither privileged nor confidential, prompting him to seek further clarification on the withheld materials.
The Ongoing Battle for Information
The tug-of-war between Muth and the secretary of state’s office continued as the latter claimed it was conducting ongoing searches for related documents. Muth criticized the lack of clarity, saying, “Every time they give you one record, then you’ve got to find another,” highlighting his concerns about the potential existence of further undisclosed records.
As of June 6, 2024, Muth did receive some additional documentation, including a transcript from an interview conducted with the voter. During this interview, the voter allegedly admitted to voting in both states, stating, however, that he did not intend to cast two votes.
Legal Justifications and Claims
In his lawsuit, Muth references that government records are generally presumed public, implying that the secretary of state’s office’s practices are counter to this norm. His aim is not only to obtain the requested documents but to establish a precedent emphasizing transparency in state governance. Muth insists that the office should follow the standard procedure of redacting any confidential information instead of withholding entire records.
The Secretary of State’s Response
In response to the allegations, the secretary of state’s office has proclaimed its commitment to transparency and adherence to legal standards. While they have stated they will provide further comments regarding ongoing litigation, their position reflects a desire to uphold their principles in the face of Muth’s claims.
Next Steps for Muth
As the legal proceedings unfold, Muth has expressed intentions to reach out to the attorney general’s office to inquire why charges against the voter were not pursued. His ongoing efforts illustrate a larger narrative about election integrity and the accessibility of public records—a matter that resonates with many concerned citizens.
By advocating for transparency in government operations, Muth’s case sheds light on the intricate balance between privacy, public interest, and the right to information in a democratic society.