Electronically Filed

11/13/2017 6:15 PM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

1 MARC E. ELIAS, ESQ. (D.C. Bar No. 442007) (pro hac vice to be submitted)
JONATHAN BERKON, ESQ. (D.C. Bar No. 99259) (pro hac vice to be submitted)
2 JACKI L. ANDERSON, ESQ. (Ill. Bar No. 6312556) (pro hac vice to be submitted)
PERKINS COIE LLP
3 700 Thirteenth St. NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
4 Tel: (202) 654-6200
melias@perkinscoie.com
5 jberkon@perkinscoie.com
JackiAnderson@perkinscoie.com
6
SAMBO DUL, ESQ. (AZ Bar No. 030313) (pro hac vice to be submitted)
7 PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000
8 Phoenix, AZ 85012
Tel: (602) 351-8000
9 sdul@perkinscoie.com

10 BRADLEY SCHRAGER, ESQ. (SBN 10217)

DANIEL BRAVO, ESQ. (SBN 13078)
11 WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO,
SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
12 3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
13 Tel: (702) 341-5200
bschrager@wrslawyers.com
14 dbravo@wrslawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
16 IN AND FOR CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF NEVADA
17
JOYCE WOODHOUSE, in her capacity as Case No. A-17-764587-C
18 Nevada State Senator for Senate District 5,
Dept. No.: Department 28
19 Plaintiff,
20 vs.
21 BARBARA CEGAVSKE, in her official
capacity as Nevada Secretary of State, AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
22 JOSEPH P. GLORIA, in his official capacity as NRS 306.040(5) CHALLENGING THE
Registrar of Voters for Clark County, Nevada, LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE
23 PETITION TO RECALL STATE
Defendants, SENATOR JOYCE WOODHOUSE
24
and
25
STEPHEN SILBERKRAUS, CHELYN
26 SAWYER, and DAVID SATORY, signatories
of the Notice of Intent to Recall,
27
Real Parties in Interest.
28

Case Number: A-17-764587-C

 1 Plaintiff, Nevada State Senator JOYCE WOODHOUSE (Senator Woodhouse), files this

2 Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants BARBARA CEGAVSKE (the

3 Secretary of State), in her official capacity as the Nevada Secretary of State, and JOSEPH P.

4 GLORIA (the Registrar), in his official capacity as the Clark County Registrar of Voters, and

5 Real Parties in Interest STEPHEN SILBERKRAUS, CHELYN SAWYER, and DAVID

6 SATORY, signatories of the Notice of Intent to Recall Senator Woodhouse. This Complaint is

7 based upon the facts and allegation below, the exhibits hereto, the declarations and their exhibits

8 filed herewith, as well as the Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted

9 concurrently with this Complaint. The Declaration of Bradley S. Schrager, Esq., is here attached

10 as Exhibit 1.

11 Plaintiff alleges as follows:

12 INTRODUCTION
13 1. In August 2017, Recall Notices were filed against Plaintiff Nevada State Senator Joyce

14 Woodhouse (Democrat, District 5), as well as State Senators Patricia Farley (Independent, District

15 8) and Nicole Cannizzaro (Democrat, District 6). Each of these Senators won their seats in

16 indisputably legitimate, democratic elections, and none has been accused of any wrongdoing.

17 Nevadas recall laws, however, authorize recall of any public officer, even absent any cause, upon

18 the filing of a Recall Notice and submission of a Recall Petition signed by at least 25% of
19 currently registered voters who also voted in the preceding election in which the officer was

20 elected. Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9; NRS 306.015.

21 2. On October 30, 2017, recall proponents submitted to the Registrar what was then

22 determined to be 17,502 petition signatures to recall Senator Woodhouse. (Plaintiffs independent

23 count has actually shown a total number of 17,597.) On November 9, 2017, based on the results of

24 the Registrars examination of a random sample of 5% (or 876) of these signatures, the Secretary

25 of State extrapolated that a sufficient number of valid signatures (at least 14,412) had been

26 submitted and issued a Notice of Sufficiency, qualifying the Recall Petition for a special election.
27 Based on the Registrars and Secretary of States own figures, however, the Secretary of State

28 should have ordered a full verification of all signatures, pursuant to NRS 1279(1), prior to

2
 1 qualifying the Recall Petition, but failed to do so. Thus, the Recall Petition has not been lawfully

2 verified, and the Notice of Sufficiency is invalid.

3 3. Further, a more thorough review of all signatures on the Recall Petition by Senator

4 Woodhouse has established that it does not contain at least 14,412 valid signatures because at least

5 5,576 of the 17,597 signatures submitted were in fact invalid. Thus, the Recall Petition does not

6 meet the requirements set forth by Nevada law, and as a result, is legally insufficient.

7 4. Among the at least 5,576 invalid petition signature entries: (i) at least 3,049 unique

8 signatures came from persons who are constitutionally ineligible to sign the Recall Petition, (ii) at

9 least 48 signatures were duplicates, (iii) at least 73 signatures were crossed out by the voter, (iv) at

10 least 51 petition entries were missing signatures altogether; (v) at least 2,012 signatures have been

11 properly revoked by the signer either before or after submission of the signatures for verification,

12 (vi) at least 178 signatures did not match the voters signature in 2016 general election poll books,

13 (vii) at least 119 signatures are illegible and cannot be counted, and (viii) at least 466 signatures

14 were submitted on invalid petition booklets or are otherwise invalid due to the petition entrys

15 noncompliance with legal standards. Subtracting these 5,576 invalid signatures from the 17,597

16 total signatures submitted brings the number of valid signatures well below the required threshold

17 of 14,412.1

18 5. Notwithstanding the Secretary of States and Registrars failure to lawfully verify all the
19 submitted signatures and the clear legal insufficiency of the Recall Petition, Senator Woodhouse

20 now faces an imminent, unlawful recall election absent relief from this Court.

21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22 6. This Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs claims pursuant to NRS 306.040(5), which

23 provides that [t]he legal sufficiency of the [recall] petition may be challenged by filing a

24 complaint in district court.

25

26 1
Some petition entries are invalid due to more than one of the specified grounds.
27 Therefore, adding the totals for each of the individual grounds of invalidity will result in a sum
that is larger than the total number of invalid signatures.
28

3
 1 7. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to

2 NRS 30.030, 30.040, and 33.010.

3 8. Venue in this district is proper under NRS 13.020 and 13.040 because the action is against

4 public officers for acts done in their official capacities.

5 PARTIES
6 9. Plaintiff Joyce Woodhouse is the State Senator for Nevada Senate District 5 and is

7 currently facing recall. She won her seat in the 2016 election with 47.89% of the vote.

8 10. Defendant Barbara Cegavske is the Nevada Secretary of State and is named as a Defendant

9 in her official capacity. She is responsible for implementing Nevadas recall laws. See, e.g., NRS

10 306.040, 294A.250; see also NRS 293.1276. Her recall responsibilities include, but are not limited

11 to, overseeing registration of recall committees, reviewing the signatures on recall petitions,

12 accepting requests to strike signatures on recall petitions, and issuing a notification of sufficiency.

13 See NRS 294A.250, 293.1276; 306.040.

14 11. Defendant Joseph Gloria is the Clark County Registrar of Voters and is named as a

15 Defendant in his official capacity. He is responsible for implementing Nevadas recall laws, and

16 his responsibilities include, but are not limited to, receiving Notices of Intent to Recall (Recall

17 Notices), examining signatures in regards to a recall petition, and issuing a call for a special

18 election pursuant to Nevadas recall laws. NRS 306.040, 306.015, 293.1276, 306.007(2); Clark
19 County Ord. 2.20.040.2

20 12. Real Party in Interest Stephen Silberkraus is a signatory of the Notice of Intent to Recall

21 Senator Woodhouse. He is a resident Henderson, Nevada, and serves as the President and

22 Treasurer of the Committee to Recall Senator Woodhouse.

23 13. Real Party in Interest Chelyn Sawyer is a signatory of the Notice of Intent to Recall

24

25 2
Pursuant to Clark County Ordinance 2.20.040, [t]he registrar of voters appointed
pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall assume all of the powers and duties heretofore
26
vested in, and imposed upon, the county clerk of Clark County, with respect to elections, except
27 the duties prescribed by NRS 293.393, relating to the preparation and delivery of certificates of
election.
28

4
 1 Senator Woodhouse. She is a resident of Henderson, Nevada, and serves as the Secretary of the

2 Committee to Recall Senator Woodhouse.

3 14. Real Party in Interest David Satory is a signatory of the Notice of Intent to Recall Senator

4 Woodhouse. He is a resident of Henderson, Nevada.

5 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6 A. Nevada Recall Law
7 15. The Nevada Constitution provides that [e]very public officer . . . is subject to recall from
8 office by the registered voters of the state, or of the county, district, or municipality which he

9 represents. Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9.

10 16. The recall process is initiated by filing a Recall Notice, which requires the signatures of

11 three registered voters who voted in the election that elected the public official being recalled.

12 NRS 306.015; NAC 306.005.

13 17. After filing the Recall Notice, proponents must collect and submit petition signatures from

14 not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the number who actually voted in the state or in the

15 county, district, or municipality which he represents, at the election in which [public officer] was

16 elected. Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9; see also Strickland v. Waymire, 235 P.3d 605, 612 (Nev.

17 2010) (While all registered voters can vote at a special recall election, only voters who voted at

18 the relevant baseline election can qualify a recall petition, and it takes 25 percent of them for a
19 special election to be called.); Foley v. Kennedy, 110 Nev. 1295 (Nev. 1994) (rejecting recall

20 petition that did not have the sufficient number of signatures). Further, only those who are

21 currently registered voters of the state, or of the county, district, or municipality which [the

22 officer targeted for recall] represents may sign the petition. Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9. The

23 deadline to acquire and submit these signatures is 90 days from the filing of the Recall Notice.

24 NRS 306.015(3).

25 18. After submission of the petition signatures, the Registrar conducts a raw count of the

26 number of signatures on the recall petition, without regard to any signatures actual validity. NRS
27 293.1276. The Secretary of State then reviews the signatures to determine if the required number

28 of signatures is present. See id.

5
 1 19. If the petition contains at least the required number of signatures, the Registrar proceeds to

2 verify the signatures by examining a random sample of at least 5% (or 500, whichever is greater)

3 of the signatures to verify that they are from qualified voters and then extrapolates from that

4 sample to estimate a total number of valid signatures the petition is assumed to contain. NRS

5 293.1277. If the Registrars verification process concludes that there are a sufficient number of

6 valid signatures, the Secretary of State issues a declaration of sufficiency, and 10 to 20 days later,

7 the Registrar must issue a call for a special election. NRS 306.040(3). This process is tolled,

8 however, by the filing of a court action under NRS 306.040(5), challenging the petitions legal

9 sufficiency. See NRS 306.040(6) (providing that if the court determines that the petition is

10 sufficient, it shall order the officer with whom the petition is filed to issue a call for a special

11 election).

12 B. The Recall Effort Against Senator Woodhouse

13 20. Just a year ago, in November 2016, Senator Woodhouse won the State Senate election in
14 District 5 with 47.9% of the vote. Absent any recall, the term of office for state senators begins the

15 day after the election and continues for four years. Nev. Const., Art. 4, Sec. 4(1).

16 21. A Recall Notice was filed against Senator Woodhouse on August 2, 2017, despite the fact

17 that she won her seat through an indisputably legitimate, democratic election and has not been

18 accused of any wrongdoing. See Notice of Intent to Recall, Ex. 2. The Recall Notice does not
19 specify any reason for the recall. See id. The Recall Committee Registration Form, however, states

20 that the purpose is to recall Senator Joyce Woodhouse and replace her with Carrie Buckthe

21 same Republican candidate Senator Woodhouse defeated barely a year ago in the 2016 general

22 election. Recall Committee Registration Form, Ex. 3.

23 22. The recall proponents have offered no further official explanation for the recall. As

24 Republican Governor Brian Sandoval concluded of his own partys efforts, there really [i]snt . . .

25 a legitimate reason for the recalls here, which are unprecedented and dangerous, exhibiting an

26
27

28

6
 1 escalation of tactics, which encourages mean-spiritedness.3

2 23. In the 2016 general election, 57,647 voters voted in Senate District 5. Thus, in order to

3 qualify the Recall Petition, 25% of that number14,412 votersneeded to sign the Recall

4 Petition. See Aug. 2, 2017 Letter from Registrar to Secretary of State, Ex. 4.

5 24. On October 30, 2017, recall proponents submitted to the Registrar what he ultimately

6 counted to be 17,502 petition signatures to recall Senator Woodhouse. (Plaintiffs independent

7 count resulted in finding 17,597 total submitted signatures). Because the raw count of the total

8 number of signatures submitted exceeded the 14,412 threshold, the Registrar proceeded with

9 signature verification pursuant to NRS 293.1277 and examined a random sample of 5% (or 876)

10 of the submitted signatures. See Certificate of Results of Signature Examination, Ex. 5.

11 25. On November 3, 2017, the Deputy Secretary of Elections, on behalf of the Secretary of

12 State, notified Senator Woodhouse that, based on the Certificate of Results from the Registrars

13 statistical sampling, the Secretary of State extrapolated that 15,444 valid signatures were

14 submitted and the Recall Petition was deemed to qualify based upon the examination of

15 signatures performed by the Clark County Registrar. Notice of Sufficiency, Ex. 6.

16 26. On the morning of November 9, 2017, however, the Registrar notified the Secretary of

17 States office, Senator Woodhouse, and others that the initial Certificate of Results that served as

18 the basis for the Secretary of States November 3, 2017, Notice of Sufficiency was erroneous
19 because it improperly counted as valid ten signatures in the sample from registered voters who did

20 not vote in District 5 in the 2016 election. November 9, 2017, Email from Joseph Gloria, Ex. 7.

21 Later that day, the Registrar issued an Amended Certificate of Results (attached hereto as Ex. 8).

22 Based on these amended statistical sampling results, the Secretary of State extrapolated that the

23 Recall Petition could be expected to contain 15,244 valid signatures and issued a new Notice of

24 Sufficiency concluding that the Recall Petition against Senator Woodhouse again qualifies for a

25
3
Megan Messerly, Jackie Valley and Riley Snyder, Signatures to Recall One of Three
26
State Senators Submitted to County in Republican-led Effort, THE NEVADA INDEPENDENT, Oct. 30,
27 2017, https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/signatures-to-recall-one-of-three-state-senators-
submitted-to-county-in-republican-led-effort (last visited Nov. 3, 2017).
28

7
 1 special election (attached hereto as Ex. 9). In reaching this conclusion, the Secretary of State

2 ignored NRS 293.1279, which, as explained further below, applies where, as here, the Registrars

3 verification of signatures is based on a limited review of a statistical sample, in contrast to when a

4 recall petition contains less than 500 signatures, all signatures are examined, and no statistical

5 sample is used.

6 D. Allegations Giving Rise To The Instant Lawsuit

7 27. Despite the Secretary of States issuance of the November 9, 2017, Notice of Sufficiency,
8 the Recall Petition is legally insufficient and does not qualify for a special election because: (1) it

9 has not been fully verified as required by NRS 293.1279; and (2) it does not contain at least

10 14,412 valid signatures as required by Nevada law. Notwithstanding the clear legal insufficiency

11 of the Recall Petition, Senator Woodhouse now faces an imminent, unlawful recall election absent

12 relief from this Court.

13 1. The recall petition has not been fully verified as required by law
14 28. Nevada law requires that, before a Recall Petition may be filed with and qualified by the
15 Secretary of State, the Registrar must verify the documents circulated for signature and complete

16 verification of the signatures on the petition pursuant to NRS 293.1276 to 293.1279, inclusive.

17 NRS 306.014(5); 306.035(2). The Secretary of State is also specifically directed to determin[e]

18 that the number of signatures on a petition to recall is sufficient pursuant to NRS 293.1276 to
19 293.1279, inclusive, prior to issuing a Notice of Sufficiency. NRS 306.040(1). Despite these

20 clear statutory directives, however, both the Country Registrar, in his verification of signatures,

21 and the Secretary of State, in her issuance of the Notices of Sufficiency, have completely and

22 inexplicably ignored NRS 293.1279.

23 29. NRS 293.1279 applies specifically where, as here, the Registrars verification of signatures

24 is based on a limited review of a statistical sample, in contrast to when a recall petition contains

25 less than 500 signatures and no statistical sample is used. See NRS 293.1277 (requiring that, if

26 more than 500 names have been signed on the documents submitted to a county clerk, the county
27 clerk shall examine the signatures by sampling [at least 500 or 5% of the signatures, whichever is

28 greater] at random for verification).

8
 1 30. Despite the laws allowance for verification based on a limited examination of a sample of

2 signatures, under NRS 293.1279(1), the Secretary of State must order the Registrar to conduct a

3 full verification of all signatures [i]f the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid

4 signatures filed is 90 percent or more, but less than the sum of 100 percent of the number of

5 signatures of registered voters needed to declare the petition sufficient plus the total number of

6 requests to remove a name received by the county clerks pursuant to NRS 295.055 or 306.015.

7 NRS 293.1279(1).

8 31. Here, the relevant, undisputed, figuresbased on the Secretary of States and Registrars

9 own calculationsto plug into the statutory formula in NRS 293.1279(1) are as follows:

10
Table 1: Figures for NRS 293.1279(1) Calculation
11 A. Number of valid signatures (calculated based on amended results of the 15,244
Registrars examination of a 5% sample of signatures)
12
B. 100 percent of the number of signatures of registered voters needed to 14,412
13 declare the petition sufficient
C. [T]he total number of requests to remove a name received by the 1,029
14 county clerks pursuant to NRS 205.055 or 306.015
D. Row B + Row C 15,441
15

16 Thus, under NRS 293.1279(1), the Registrar should have been directed to conduct a full

17 verification through a complete examination of all petition signatures if the figure in Row A

18 (15,244) is 90 percent or more, but less than . . . 100 percent of the sum of the figures in Row B
19 and Row C (15,441). This condition is indisputably satisfied here because 15,244 is 98.7% of

20 15,441.

21 32. However, both the Secretary of State and the Registrar failed to comply with NRS

22 293.1279(1), and the Registrar has not conducted a full verification of all signatures on the Recall

23 Petition. Instead of complying with NRS 293.1279 and ordering a full verification, the Secretary

24 of State, in issuing both the November 3, 2017 and November 9, 2017 Notices of Sufficiency,

25 ignored the law and used incorrect numbersbased on results of the examination of the 5%

26 sample rather than from a full verification, as required by NRS 293.1279to complete the
27 necessary calculations under NRS 293.1278 and determine whether the Recall Petition qualifies

28 for a special election.

9
 1 33. The Secretary of States failure to order a full verification, and the Registrars failure to

2 complete one, is in clear violation of Nevada law and renders the Notice of Sufficiency invalid and

3 the Recall Petition not lawfully verified.

4 2. The recall petition does not contain enough valid signatures

5 34. Even if a full verification were not required, the Recall Petition is legally insufficient
6 because it does not contain the requisite number of valid signatures. Although an extrapolation

7 from the Registrars examination of a 5% sample of signatures estimated that the Recall Petition is

8 expected to contain enough valid signatures, a more thorough examination of all signatures on the

9 Recall Petition has established that at least 5,576 submitted signatures are, in fact, invalid for one

10 or more of the reasons set forth below. Subtracting these 5,576 invalid signatures from the 17,597

11 total signatures submitted brings the number of valid signatures to, at most, 12,021 signatures

12 well below the required threshold of 14,412.

13 a. Signatures from constitutionally ineligible persons

14 35. Under the Nevada Constitution, only voters who are registered to vote in the District which
15 Senator Woodhouse represents (Senate District 5) and who actually voted in the district

16 which [she] represents, at the election in which [she] was elected can validly sign a petition to

17 recall Senator Woodhouse. Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9. Accordingly, signatures from those who:

18 (i) are not registered to vote; (ii) are registered to vote, but not currently residing in Senate
19 District 5; (iii) are registered to vote, but did not vote in the 2016 election; or (iv) are registered to

20 vote, but did not vote in Senate District 5 in the 2016 election, cannot be counted as valid

21 signatures to recall Senator Woodhouse.

22 36. Here, at least 3,049 unique signatures are plainly invalid under the Nevada Constitution: (i)

23 at least 1,462 signatures came from individuals who are either not registered voters or have had

24 their registration cancelled in the State of Nevada; (ii) at least 538 signatures came from individual

25 who, despite being registered voters, do not currently reside in Senate District 5; (iii) at least 617

26 signatures came from individuals who, despite being registered voters, did not vote in the 2016
27 election; and (iv) at least 934 signatures came from individual who, despite being registered

28 voters, did not vote in Senate District 5 in the 2016 election. Declaration of Tara Brosnan

10
 1 (Brosnan Decl.) 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, Ex. 10. Because some individuals are ineligible for more

2 than one of the reasons above, at least 3,049 unique and constitutionally invalid signatures cannot

3 be counted when calculating the total number of valid signatures.

4 b. Duplicate, crossed-out and missing signatures

5 37. For the Recall Petition to be sufficient, the Nevada Constitution requires the signatures of
6 at least 25% of currently registered voters who actually voted in Senate District 5 in the 2016

7 election that elected Senator Woodhouse. Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9. This strict numerical

8 requirement necessarily mandates that duplicate signatures and petition entries with crossed-out

9 signatures or with the signature field left blank cannot be counted. Duplicate signatures from the

10 same person should not be counted twice. See Cohen v. Rains, 745 S.W.2d 949, 954 (Tex. App.

11 Ct. 1988) (holding that the duplicate signatures contained on [the] petitions . . . cannot be counted

12 to satisfy the statutory minimum number of signatures). Crossed-out signatures show clear voter

13 intent to retract their signatures and should not be counted. Capital Acad. Charter Sch. v.

14 Harrisburg Sch. Dist., 934 A.2d 189 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2007) (describing lower court decision to

15 exclude crossed-out signatures); Woodfill v. Parker, No. 2014-44974, 2015 Tex. Dist. LEXIS

16 2191, at *3 (Tex. Dist. Ct. 2015) (holding that [s]ignatures that were crossed-out or withdrawn

17 before the petition was submitted cannot be counted as legally valid signatures). And petition

18 entries with the signature field left blank cannot plausibly be considered a valid signature because
19 none was provided. See NAC 293.182(2)(a)(2) (requiring [t]he signature of the person signing

20 the petition).

21 38. Nonetheless, at least 48 duplicate signatures, 73 crossed-out signatures, and 51 petition

22 entries with missing signature were among the signatures counted as valid. Brosnan Decl. 19;

23 Declaration of Rachel Anderson (Anderson Decl.) 15, 16, Ex. 11. These invalid signatures

24 cannot be counted when calculating the total number of valid signatures.

25 c. Revoked signatures
26 39. Nevada law expressly permits those who sign recall petitions to request removal of their
27 signatures both before and after submission of the signatures for verification. See NRS 306.015(5)

28 (providing that any person who signs a recall petition may request that the county clerk remove

11
 1 the persons name from the petition by submitting a request in writing to the county clerk at any

2 time before the petition is submitted for the verification of signatures); NRS 306.040(2)

3 (providing that any person who signs a recall petition may request the Secretary of State to strike

4 the persons name from the petition after verification of the signatures is complete, but not later

5 than the date a complaint is filed pursuant to [NRS 306.040(5)] or the date the call for a special

6 election is issued, whichever is earlier).

7 40. Here, 406 signatures were revoked, pursuant to NRS 306.015(5), prior to submission of the

8 petition signatures for verification and 1,666 signatures were revoked for good cause, pursuant to

9 NRS 306.040(2), after submission of the petition signatures for verification. Brosnan Decl. 30,

10 d. Mismatched signatures
11 41. Signatures that do not match the voters signatures on their voter registration application or
12 other acceptable form of identification cannot be counted as valid. See NRS 293.1277(4) (allowing

13 use [of] the signatures contained in the file of applications to register to vote to verify

14 signatures); Fiannaca v. Gill, 78 Nev. 337 (Nev. 1962) (examining whether signatures on recall

15 petitions compared favorably to previous signatures on file); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Pollastrini,

16 995 N.E.2d 547 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (holding that the failure of a signature match resulted in

17 disqualification of signatures on a petition).

18 42. Here, at least 164 (plus 14 identified by the Registrar, for a total of 178) signatures did not
19 match the exemplars of the voters signatures in the 2016 poll books, maintained and provided by

20 the Registrar, which were previously checked against the voters signatures on their voter

21 registration application or other acceptable form of identification. Anderson Decl. 18-20; see

22 also NRS 293.277 (providing that those who vote in person must sign the roster, and [t]he

23 signature must be compared . . . with the signature or a facsimile therefore on the persons

24 application to register to vote or one of the [specified] forms of identification). Thus, at least 178

25 mismatched signatures cannot be counted when calculating the total number of valid signatures.

26 e. Signatures on invalid petition booklets

27 43. Nevada law imposes specific requirements for recall petition booklets and individual

28 signatures on those petitions to be valid. See, e.g., NRS 306.020(3) (detailing required contents of

12
 1 petition for recall); NRS 293.12758(2)-(4) (detailing requirements for petition); see also Las

2 Vegas Convention Visitors Auth. v. Miller, 124 Nev. 669 (Nev. 2008) (holding initiative petitions

3 did not substantially comply with Nevada statute because they did not meet requirements to

4 include the number of signatures on the initiative petition or an affirmation that the signer had the

5 opportunity to review the document before signing).

6 44. Here, at least a number of signatures appeared on invalid petition booklets or are otherwise

7 invalid due to noncompliance with petition requirements for one or more of the reasons below.

8 Specifically:

9 a. Signature Number Mismatch: At least 11 signatures are invalid because they

10 appeared on a petition booklet with a signature number mismatch. See NRS

11 293.182(2)(b) (requiring affidavit with number of signatures affixed); Anderson

12 Decl. 10.

13 b. Missing or Incomplete Affidavit: At least 91 signatures are invalid because the

14 petition booklet had a missing or incomplete affidavit from the individual who
15 circulated the Recall Petition. See NAC 293.182(3)(c) (requiring affidavit of the

16 individual who circulated the document); Anderson Decl. 9.

17 c. Invalid Circulators Signature: At least 104 signatures are invalid because they
18 appeared on petition booklets in which the circulators signature on the affidavit
19 did not match his signature on other petition booklet affidavits. See NAC

20 293.182(2)(b) (requiring valid signature of circulator); Anderson Decl. 12.

21 d. Missing Notary Stamp: At least 34 signatures are invalid because they appeared
22 on petition booklets that did not affix a notary stamp. NAC 293.182(2); Anderson

23 Decl. 8.

24 e. Missing Date: At least 67 signatures are invalid because there is no date. See NAC
25 293.182(2) (requiring petition to contain the date that the petition was signed);

26 Anderson Decl. 14.

27 f. Date that Post-Dates Affidavit: At least 138 signature entries are invalid because
28 the signature is dated after the affidavit date (meaning that the signature was not

13
 1 properly sworn-to). See NAC 293.182(2) (requiring petition to contain the date

2 that the petition was signed); Anderson Decl. 14.

3 g. Date that Pre-Dates Recall Notice of Intent: At least 22 signature entries are
4 invalid the signature is dated before the filing of the Notice of Intent supporting the
5 Recall Petition. See NAC 293.182(2) (requiring petition to contain the date that
6 the petition was signed); Anderson Decl. 14. 138.

7 h. Illegible Petition Entry: At least 119 signatures are invalid because the signers
8 printed name, address and/or date is illegible. See NAC 293.182(2)(a)(1) (requiring

9 [t]he name of each person signing the petition); id. at (3) (requiring [t]he street

10 address of the residence where the person signing the petition actually resides); id.

11 at (5) (requiring [t]he date of the signature); Anderson Decl. 17.

12 * * * * *
13 45. In sum, at least 5,576 signatures are invalid based on one or more of reasons described
14 above3,049 for constitutional invalidity and 2,527 from statutory defectsand subtracting those

15 invalid signatures from the 17,597 submitted signatures brings the number of valid signatures to

16 12,021below the required threshold of 14,412. Accordingly, the Recall Petition against Senator

17 Woodhouse is legally insufficient and does not qualify for a special election.

18 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19 (Failure to Complete Full Verification Required by NRS 293.1279)
20 46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and

21 the paragraphs in the Counts below as though fully set forth herein.

22 47. Nevada law requires that, before a Recall Petition may be filed with and qualified by the

23 Secretary of State, the Registrar must verify the documents circulated for signature and complete

24 verification of the signatures on the petition pursuant to NRS 293.1276 to 293.1279, inclusive.

25 NRS 306.014(5); 306.035(2). The Secretary of State is also specifically directed to determin[e]

26 that the number of signatures on a petition to recall is sufficient pursuant to NRS 293.1276 to
27 293.1279, inclusive, prior to issuing a Notice of Sufficiency. NRS 306.040(1).

28 48. Despite these clear statutory directives, however, both the Country Registrar, in his

14
 1 verification of signatures, and the Secretary of State, in her issuance of the Notices of Sufficiency,

2 have failed to comply with the express requirements of Nevada law.

3 49. The Secretary of States failure to order a full verification, and the Registrars failure to

4 complete one, violates NRS 293.1279, 306.014(5), 306.035(2), and 306.040(1). The Court should

5 declare that the Recall Petition has not been lawfully verified and require Defendants, specifically,

6 the Registrar, to conduct a full review of all petition signatures.

7
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8
(Legally Insufficient Petition in Violation of Article 2, Sec. 9 of the Nevada Constitution
9 and NRS Chapters 293 and 306)
10 50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and
11 the paragraphs in the Counts below as though fully set forth herein.

12 51. The Nevada Constitution clearly provides that only voters who are registered to vote in the

13 District which Senator Woodhouse represents (Senate District 5) and who actually voted in [that]

14 district . . . , at the election in which [she] was elected can validly sign a petition to recall Senator

15 Woodhouse. Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9. Further, the Recall Petition must contain signatures from

16 at least 25% of those who actually voted in Senate District 5 in 2016. Id.

17 52. Further, NRS Chapters 293 and 306 impose specific requirements for the signatures on

18 recall petitions to be valid, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) signatures properly
19 revoked, either before or after submission of the petition signatures for verification, cannot be

20 counted as valid pursuant to NRS 306.015(5) and 306.040(2); (ii) signatures that do not match the

21 voters signatures on their voter registration application or other acceptable form of identification

22 cannot be counted as valid pursuant to NRS 293.1277(4) and 293.277; (iii) Signatures that appear

23 on invalid petitions booklets or that otherwise did not substantially comply with petition

24 requirements cannot be counted as valid pursuant to NRS 293.12758(2)-(4) and 306.020(3).

25 53. Nonetheless, subtracting invalid signatureswhich total at least 5,576 signaturesfrom

26 the 17,597 signatures submitted, yields a total number of valid signatures of, at most 12,021,
27 which is well below the required threshold of 14,412. As a result, the Recall Petition against

28 Senator Woodhouse is legally insufficient.

15
 1 54. The Court should declare the Recall Petition legally insufficient, invalidate the Notice of

2 Sufficiency issued by the Secretary of State, and order Defendants to cease from any further

3 proceedings regarding the Recall Petition against Senator Woodhouse.

4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
6 A. Declare that the Recall Petition against Nevada State Senator Joyce Woodhouse has
7 not been lawfully verified as required by NRS 293.1279;
8 B. Declare that the Recall Petition against Nevada State Senator Joyce Woodhouse is

9 legally insufficient under Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9 and NRS Title 24, Chapters 293

10 and 306;

11 C. Declare that the Notice of Sufficiency issued by the Secretary of State on November 9,

12 2017 is contrary to the requirements established by Nev. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 9 and NRS

13 Title 24, Chapters 293 and 306 and, therefore, invalid;

14 D. Order that the Registrar and the Secretary of State, as well as their agents, officers,

15 employees, and successors, cease from any further proceedings regarding the Recall

16 Petition against Nevada State Senator Joyce Woodhouse pursuant to NRS 306.040(6),

17 or in the alternative, order that the Registrar and the Secretary of State, as well as their

18 agents, officers, employees, and successors, comply with NRS 293.1279 and examine
19 all signatures for verification;

20 / / /

21 / / /

22 / / /

23 / / /

24 / / /

25 / / /

26 / / /
27 / / /

28 / / /

16
 1 E. Grant such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

3 Dated: November 13, 2017 WOLF RIFKIN SHAPIRO SCHULMAN &

RABKIN, LLP
4

5 By: /s/ Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.

Marc E. Elias
6 Jonathan Berkon
Jacki L. Anderson
7 PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
8 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
9 Sambo Dul
PERKINS COIE LLP
10 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
11
Bradley S. Schrager
12 Daniel Bravo
WOLF RIFKIN SHAPIRO SCHULMAN
13 & RABKIN, LLP
3556 East Russell Road, Second Floor
14 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff Joyce Woodhouse
16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

17