Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nevada Supreme Court revives criminal case over Trump elector gambit
Politico (Yeah, I know) ^ | November 13, 2025 | Kyle Cheney

Posted on 11/14/2025 11:21:00 AM PST by Red Badger

A unanimous Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday revived the criminal case against six prominent allies of President Donald Trump who falsely claimed to be legitimate presidential electors amid Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election.

The justices concluded that Attorney General Aaron Ford properly brought the forgery case in Las Vegas, overruling a lower-court decision that found the case should have been brought in Carson City, where the pro-Trump elector nominees signed the false documents.

The 6-0 decision comes just days after Trump pardoned dozens of allies — including the six defendants in Nevada — for any potential federal crimes related to the 2020 election. However, the president’s pardon power does not extend to state-level offenses like those brought by Ford.

Among those facing forgery charges — which carry a maximum five-year penalty — are the state’s sitting GOP chairman Michael McDonald, his vice chair Jim Hindle and the state’s Republican National Committeeman Jim DeGraffenreid.

At the urging of the Trump campaign in 2020, dozens of Republican activists in seven swing states signed certificates claiming to be legitimate presidential electors — though each of the battlegrounds went for Joe Biden. Many were told by party and campaign leadership that the paperwork was a legal necessity to ensure that their electoral votes would be counted if Trump prevailed in any of his court challenges to the election results.

However, top Trump advisers at the time were also planning to use the false certificates to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to derail Biden’s victory when Congress met to count ballots on Jan. 6, 2021. Pence, however, refused to recognize the GOP-signed certificates because they were not certified by the states’ governors or legislatures, depriving them of any legal or constitutional legitimacy.

The continuation of the case, nearly five years after the elector certificates were signed, stands in contrast to the fate of a similar criminal case brought by Michigan prosecutors against 16 Republicans who took part in the same effort. A judge there dismissed the case in September, saying the evidence failed to show the defendants acted with criminal intent.

A criminal case in Arizona against the state’s 10 false GOP electors remains in limbo as Attorney General Kris Mayes contends with the trial judge’s ruling that the grand jury proceedings were flawed. In Wisconsin, another criminal case remains pending against three leaders of the Trump campaign’s elector effort. A fourth case in Georgia has been largely derailed after the state supreme court disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from continuing to preside due to an alleged conflict of interest.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: election; electors; nevada
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 11/14/2025 11:21:00 AM PST by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

If Trump’ electors get convicted, SCOTUS would likely take the case as a free speech question. They had a right to question the election certification, which SCOTUS ducked shamefully.


2 posted on 11/14/2025 11:29:04 AM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

There is NO SUCH THING AS ‘FAKE ELECTORS’...................


3 posted on 11/14/2025 11:30:56 AM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

It’s not about convicting them. They’re going to lawfare them into bankruptcy. There’s no downside for the democrats. If there is a countersuit for damages and legal fees the state (aka the taxpayers) will have to pay.


4 posted on 11/14/2025 11:35:17 AM PST by Samurai_Jack (This is not about hypocrisy, this is about hierarchy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The opinion is here: (scroll to the bottom and open the pdf):

https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=69862

5 posted on 11/14/2025 11:36:07 AM PST by thegagline (Sic semper tyrannis! Trump & Vance, 2024! (Formerly) Goldwater & Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW-—FORD IS A GRADE A SNAKE


6 posted on 11/14/2025 11:38:38 AM PST by ridesthemiles (not giving up on TRUMP---EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

So was Henry.......................


7 posted on 11/14/2025 11:40:08 AM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

More on the Get Trump Train - all aboard!


8 posted on 11/14/2025 11:57:55 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now its your turn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Alternate slates of electors figure peripherally in every presidential election.


9 posted on 11/14/2025 12:04:20 PM PST by arthurus (l| covfeve |l )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Guess corruption in Nevada goes all the way up to their Supreme Court. Amazing how Republicans doing the same thing (alternate electors) that democrats have done forever is illegal when Republicans do it.


10 posted on 11/14/2025 12:06:26 PM PST by falcon99 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin
It has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with one’s legal duty as an elector. If you are an elector in a state where there are one or more ongoing legal challenges to the Election Day results when the electoral vote certification is done in December, you are pretty much obligated to certify your candidate’s slate of electors in case any of the legal challenges is successful. Failure to do so would likely disqualify your state from having its electoral votes counted.

As an FYI … there were THREE sets of electors certified for Hawaii in 1960. And the two with the “fake” electors were the ones that had the actual winning candidate in Hawaii (Kennedy) certified.

11 posted on 11/14/2025 12:10:23 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("There's somebody new and he sure ain't no rodeo man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) can rule on a state court case involving free speech suppression if the case raises a federal question, meaning it involves a constitutional right like the First Amendment. The state court’s decision is reviewed to ensure it aligns with the U.S. Constitution, as the First Amendment provides the minimum standard for free speech that all state governments must uphold


12 posted on 11/14/2025 12:13:15 PM PST by desertsolitaire (hite sea. My grandfather shouted warning to anyone who would listen that the Titanic was going to st)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

They were “Alternate Electors.”

These judges are crazy.


13 posted on 11/14/2025 12:20:50 PM PST by ConservativeMind (Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

It’s OK when the Democrats do it but a crime when Republicans do it. Nevada went for Biden by less than 35,000 votes. How many of those were fraudulent?


14 posted on 11/14/2025 1:50:36 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Samurai_Jack

It will also possibly damage the midterm elections.


15 posted on 11/14/2025 2:13:46 PM PST by Bikkuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin
If Trump’ electors get convicted, SCOTUS would likely take the case as a free speech question. They had a right to question the election certification, which SCOTUS ducked shamefully.

The allegation (per the article, anyway) is that they signed forged / fake documents and presented themselves as the official Electors. Not that they "questioned the election." Or is that portion of the article false?

16 posted on 11/14/2025 2:57:06 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
The allegation (per the article, anyway) is that they signed forged / fake documents and presented themselves as the official Electors. Not that they "questioned the election." Or is that portion of the article false?

Courts often misrepresent the legal arguments they don't want to address in their opinions. Lawyers can frequently tell how the court ruled by how they frame the issues in the case. The electors claimed that they were the legitimate winning slate of presidential electors because the election was stolen. That's their First Amendment right to make that claim. Ultimately, who won a presidential election becomes a political decision certified by Congress. I believe SCOTUS would hear that case.
17 posted on 11/14/2025 3:05:42 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
It has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with one’s legal duty as an elector.

Well maybe that's how you do things up in Canada, but in the U.S., the declared "loser" of an election has every right to complain that the election was stolen, and he or she is the rightful winner. That's political speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Please feel free to enlighten us about Canada's legal system, but we do things differently here in the U.S.
18 posted on 11/14/2025 3:11:50 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin
1. If I lived in Canada you might have a point.

2. You have completely fabricated the facts of this case. In fact, you have made sh!t up out of thin air. These people have been charged with fraud and/or forgery for signing elector certificates. This was not an act of protest but a legitimate function in the election process. If they try to base their defense in this case on a First Amendment claim, they are going to lose in embarrassing fashion. Presidential electors who sign official documents as an act of protest are no different than a hospital custodian who supports the legalization of all drugs, and tries to exercise his First Amendment rights by pretending he’s a medical doctor and signing prescriptions for opioid painkillers.

19 posted on 11/14/2025 7:40:11 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("There's somebody new and he sure ain't no rodeo man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bikkuri

“damage the midterm elections.”

Yep, no downside for democrats.


20 posted on 11/15/2025 3:18:42 AM PST by Samurai_Jack (This is not about hypocrisy, this is about hierarchy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson