In Nevada, a new centralized voter registration system is undergoing its initial real-world test during a significant presidential election, following practice runs that identified notable issues with data transfer accuracy. State officials have stated that previous problems, such as incorrectly assigning voters to precincts and mislabeling them as “inactive,” have been resolved, and they anticipate a smooth election process on Tuesday.
However, Cari-Ann Burgess, the former interim registrar for Washoe County, who is currently on administrative leave due to charges of insubordination and inadequate job performance, contends that these issues remain unresolved. Burgess intends to file a whistleblower complaint to request federal oversight for Nevada’s future elections. Washoe County, which includes Reno, is the largest area attempting the data transfer this year.
Despite lacking direct knowledge of her office’s actions since her departure on September 25, Burgess believes that the problems were too significant to be resolved by the understaffed registrar’s office before early voting began on October 19. The Voter Registration and Election Management Solution, mandated by the Nevada legislature, aims to centralize voter registration data from 16 of the state’s 17 counties, enhancing election efficiency and security. Even Burgess acknowledges the necessity of modernizing Nevada’s voter registration system.
Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, was elected with a pledge to secure Nevada’s elections and restore voter trust following efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to question the 2020 election. The new voter registration system, separate from voting machines, aims to better track eligible voters and was launched eight weeks before early voting began, with Aguilar keen to have it ready for the 2024 general election. However, the implementation, requiring large-scale data transfers from obsolete county systems to the new centralized system, has strained understaffed county clerk offices already handling general election duties.
Spring mock elections unearthed enough issues that clerks urged Aguilar’s office to postpone the system’s activation until after the June primary, allowing time to address 20 identified problems. Consequently, the system’s first real-election usage occurs amid a presidential contest where one side is preparing to contest unfavorable results. Discussing the importance of getting the project right, an election deputy emphasized to lawmakers in early 2024 that precision is paramount.
Three election experts consulted by ProPublica could not decisively determine whether Nevada made the right call in rolling out such a crucial project in an election year. They observed that while timing changes is always challenging, Nevada had invested considerable time and resources into the transition. A recent report by the Institute for Responsive Government noted similar challenges experienced by other states transitioning to such systems.
Nevada has invested $30 million into the project since it was initiated in early 2023. The Secretary of State’s office has collaborated closely with each participating county, offering substantial support throughout the transition. Since early and mail-in voting began on October 19, only isolated ballot errors have been reported. Gabriel Di Chiara, Nevada’s chief deputy secretary of state, stated that the absence of widespread voter complaints since early voting commenced indicates that the system is functioning correctly.
Despite this, Burgess has expressed concerns, asserting that incorrect voter data was incorporated into the new system. She accuses the state of hastily implementing the system, potentially causing numerous issues as ballots are cast. State and county officials have refuted these claims, providing documentation that critical data transfer deadlines were met statewide. However, they acknowledged ongoing problem identification and correction efforts before voting commenced.
Burgess claims that testing revealed significant errors affecting tens of thousands of voters in Washoe County, including incorrect precinct assignments and mislabeling active voters as inactive or vice versa. An inactive label would prevent a mail-in ballot from being sent, though in-person voting would still be possible. She also criticizes the new system for lacking safeguards to prevent noncitizen registration, a claim the Secretary of State’s office denies, noting no difference from the old system in this regard.
Concerned about potential election impact and unauthorized voting, Burgess believes Washoe County lacked sufficient time to ensure proper data transfers for its 384,000 voters. She noted that her office was diligently correcting errors when she left, without firsthand knowledge of subsequent progress.
Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, plans to use the same vendor as the state but will delay data transfer until next year. Burgess is the only county election official to publicly express concerns. While other clerks criticized the transition timeline, they have not reported data transfer issues. After securing a post-primary system launch, the clerks committed to thoroughly preparing the system for the general election, said Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer Amy Burgans. Four mock elections this year helped ensure system integrity.
Burgans stated frustrations with transitioning systems during a presidential election year in a swing state but affirmed that clerks are dedicated to maintaining election integrity. The new system also aids in identifying voters attempting to vote in multiple counties.
Jim Hindle, the clerk-treasurer for Storey County, with a population around 4,100, reported no concerns about the new system, which had performed well during its initial weeks. Despite a relatively smooth rollout, issues surfaced, such as an incorrect election appearing on check-in kiosks in Nye County, causing voting delays. Lyon County mistakenly assigned 1,100 voters the wrong ballots due to district placement errors; however, this dated back to the legacy system and didn’t impact the presidential election.
Errors identified during testing were anticipated, identified, and resolved, according to Di Chiara, who noted risks in persisting with outdated county systems. For example, Washoe County’s vendor no longer supported essential software, resulting in patchwork fixes over the years.
Faults in Washoe County’s legacy system led to data errors in the new system, including inaccuracies in address classifications affecting voter status. A county spokesperson confirmed these issues were addressed before ballots were distributed, attributing problems to legacy system data complexities requiring meticulous record reviews.
Efforts by the Trump campaign, the national Republican Party, and allies to challenge state election results have been noted, with Nevada’s voter management system on the Republican National Committee’s radar. The party sought records related to mock elections for the new system, reflecting a tactic of emphasizing election-related human errors to undermine confidence.
Burgess’ decision to go public follows a tumultuous period as Washoe County’s chief elections officer, during which she ended up on administrative leave. She plans to file a lawsuit contesting what she perceives as her impending termination post-election.
Struggling with system transition pressures, Burgess missed a federal deadline for purging inactive voters. Following a meeting, she offered to revert to deputy registrar, instead being placed on stress leave. When attempting to return with a medical note, she received a letter citing performance issues, including the missed deadline and insubordination. Accused of helping churches set up illegal ballot drop-off boxes, she clarified that she was facilitating legal third-party ballot collection.
Despite these challenges, Burgess aimed to restore election confidence. A registered nonpartisan who voted for Trump and Senator Jacky Rosen, she investigated all complaints and maintained transparent operations.
