We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:


Latest News

NV Court Dismisses Case Against Alternate Electors Over Jurisdictional Problems

 June 22, 2024

A judge has dismissed a high-profile case against six Republicans accused of submitting alternate elector certifications disputing the 2020 Presidential election results.

The dismissal of the election interference case in Nevada was based on jurisdictional issues, as Breitbart reports.

The Case Involves Prominent Nevada Republicans

The six Republicans involved in the case are Michael J. McDonald, Jim Hindle, Jim DeGraffenreid, Jesse Law, Shawn Meehan, and Eileen Rice.

These individuals were facing legal challenges due to their controversial actions during the 2020 presidential election.

The indictments filed against them stemmed from assertions that they submitted alternate elector documentation in support of overturning the election results.

The legal process saw a significant development when Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus dismissed the case against the six Republicans.

The dismissal happened earlier this week, shedding light on the jurisdictional complexities behind the case. This ruling comes after a grand jury indictment in December 2023.

Jurisdictional Issues Lead to Dismissal

Judge Holthus ruled that her court did not have jurisdiction over the case because the alleged misconduct occurred outside of Clark County. She notably remarked, “You have literally, in my opinion, a crime that has occurred in another jurisdiction.”

Additionally, Judge Holthus emphasized that the alternative elector documents were signed in Carson City and mailed from Douglas County. As a result, she found Clark County to be an inappropriate venue for prosecuting the case. Summing up her stance, she stated, “It’s so appropriately up north and so appropriately not here.”

Prosecution Faces Statute of Limitations Challenge

The case’s journey began when Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford announced that he would pursue legal action against the alternate electors. The case was initially set for trial in January and had garnered significant public interest due to its connections to the broader controversy over the 2020 presidential election.

However, with the recent dismissal, Ford faces a significant legal hurdle. He expressed his disagreement with the ruling, saying, “Judge got it wrong.” Despite his objections, Ford must now contend with the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations, which occurred in December, if he chooses to refile the case in a different jurisdiction.

Appeal to the United States Supreme Court

In response to the dismissal, Nevada's attorney general has announced plans to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. This move reflects the prosecution's determination to pursue the case despite the jurisdictional challenges and the expiration of the statute of limitations. The appeal aims to overturn the dismissal and allow the case to proceed in an appropriate court.

The alternate elector issue has been a point of contention in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Supporters of the six Republicans argue that their intentions were to highlight their grievances regarding what they perceived as electoral irregularities. Opponents, however, view their actions as undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

Political and Public Reactions

The dismissal has sparked reactions from various political figures and the public. While some praised the ruling as a necessary correction due to jurisdictional errors, others criticized it, suggesting it lets the defendants off without addressing the core issue of their actions during the electoral process. As the case advances to the United States Supreme Court, these mixed reactions are likely to continue.

The case against the alternate electors is among several legal proceedings across the country related to attempts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results. This specific instance in Nevada highlights the complex layers of jurisdictional law and the critical timelines that impact the pursuit of justice in such cases.


Judge Mary Kay Holthus's dismissal of the case against six Republicans over alternate elector certifications has underscored jurisdictional challenges in high-profile election-related cases.

With an appeal to the United States Supreme Court in the works and the statute of limitations posing additional hurdles, the future of this legal battle remains uncertain.

The developments in this case are a part of a broader narrative of legal challenges following the 2020 presidential election.