Nevada’s Claims of Noncitizen Voting Fell From 15,903 to 185 to Zero, Bipartisan Leaders Say
In a political climate where Republican and Democratic leaders rarely find common ground, two of Nevada’s most prominent figures have come together to defend the integrity of the state’s election system and to challenge a federal claim that briefly cast doubt on Nevada’s voter rolls. Brian Sandoval, a former Republican governor, and Richard Perkins, a former Democratic speaker of the Nevada Assembly, co-authored an opinion piece through the Democracy Defense Foundation, a group they co-chair. The article recounts that in July 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent a letter to Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, asserting that as many as 15,903 noncitizens were on Nevada’s voter rolls. That same week, the U.S. Department of Justice sent letters to election officials in all 50 states, warning of potential criminal prosecution. The message from Washington, the authors write, was unmistakable: Nevada’s elections were compromised, and federal action was warranted. But the authors, relying on their shared experience in state government, urge voters to consider what happened after the letters arrived. “None of it held up,” they write. Within weeks, the federal government’s number would be revised drastically downward, eventually reaching zero. The two leaders say their purpose is not to score political points, but to give Nevadans a full accounting of what happened to their voter rolls this summer.
According to the authors, the DHS claim fell apart quickly once state officials began asking questions. Within weeks, DHS revised its figure from 15,903 to 185, acknowledging in a call with Nevada officials that the original number had been unverified and was never cross-checked against citizenship records. The original figure, they explain, was a maximum estimate, not a confirmed list of noncitizen voters. Nevada’s deputy attorney general then reviewed every one of the 185 remaining flagged voters individually. After a careful review, all 185 were determined to be likely U.S. citizens. The federal government’s claim therefore moved from 15,903 to 185 to zero. The authors do not describe this outcome as a partisan victory. They explicitly reject the idea that noncitizen voting is impossible or that Nevada’s election infrastructure is beyond scrutiny. Instead, they say, the episode is a demonstration of how election integrity is supposed to work. A serious question was raised; Nevada officials took it seriously, reviewed the evidence, and made the findings public. “That is election integrity in practice, not in theory,” they write. The result, they argue, is not something to be spun by either party. It is a matter of public record, and it should restore confidence rather than deepen suspicion.
Nevada was not the only state to receive such a letter. The DOJ sent similar correspondence to election officials across the country during the same election cycle, raising questions about the relationship between federal authorities and state-run election systems. The authors argue that Nevada’s experience shows why elections are best administered at the state and local level, by officials who know their voters, understand their systems, and are accountable to the communities they serve. When a serious question was raised, Nevada’s officials answered it, the authors say. That is exactly how the system should work. They are not, however, calling for an end to scrutiny. Elected officials and the public have every right to ask hard questions about election security. But the authors insist that what matters is what happens after those questions are asked. The federal claim was alarming, but it was not verified. When state officials demanded more information, the federal government revised its numbers down. When the remaining names were examined individually, none were shown to be noncitizens. The authors conclude that the officials closest to the process are best positioned to answer questions about it, and that the federal government’s somewhat heavy-handed involvement was not needed to protect the integrity of Nevada’s elections.
The need for a factual answer was especially important because voters were already anxious. The authors cite polling from the Democracy Defense Foundation that found 58 percent of Nevada voters were worried about noncitizen voting before the federal letters arrived. Those voters, the authors write, deserved a factual answer, and Nevada’s election officials delivered one. The review was thorough, the findings were clear, and the result is now on the public record. The authors also take time to explain the safeguards that make noncitizen voting extremely difficult. Before a registration is complete, applicants are cross-checked against state databases. Registering to vote as a noncitizen is a crime. Signatures on mail ballots require bipartisan review, meaning one Democrat and one Republican must sign off on every single mail ballot. Chain-of-custody documentation is maintained at every step, from the moment a ballot is issued to the moment it is counted. These safeguards, the authors emphasize, have been in place and working for years. They have produced results that both parties have accepted and benefited from. Nevada’s election infrastructure does not operate on good faith alone, the authors write; it operates on process. That process, they argue, is what allowed the state to withstand the pressure of an alarming federal claim without overreacting and without dismissing legitimate concerns.
The article makes a broader argument about the conditions under which public confidence in elections can be sustained. The authors identify three essential elements: officials who follow the rules, courts that enforce those rules, and a public that has access to accurate information. In Nevada, they say, all three were present in the weeks after the federal letters arrived. The state’s officials did not ignore the federal government’s claim. They investigated it. They responded with specifics. And they published what they found. Courts, the authors contend, enforced the legal framework that governs elections, including the requirement that officials abide by state law and administrative procedures. And the public, which had been worried about noncitizen voting, received an accounting that reduced a sensational number to zero. The Democracy Defense Foundation, the organization the two leaders co-chair, exists to ensure that Nevadans know their elections are secure and to push for the transparency that increases trust in the state’s vote-counting practices. The op-ed calls on elected officials and citizens alike to understand that election integrity is not only about preventing fraud; it is also about maintaining confidence. When a claim is tested and fails, the authors say, the result should be more trust, not more suspicion.
The authors close with a direct appeal to Nevada voters, urging them to cast their ballots this election season with confidence and pride. They write that the system worked as it has for decades, and that the federal government’s shifting numbers should reassure voters rather than frighten them. The joint authorship is itself notable. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, served two terms as Nevada governor and was widely regarded as a moderate leader who emphasized bipartisanship. Richard Perkins, a Democrat, served as speaker of the Nevada Assembly and later as chief of police, giving him experience in both law enforcement and legislative oversight. Together, they represent a cross-partisan consensus that the state’s election system is secure, even at a moment when election-related claims are frequently used to divide the public. They acknowledge that the episode began with an alarming federal letter, and that 58 percent of Nevada voters were already worried about noncitizen voting. But they argue that the actual record, after review, undercuts the claim rather than supporting it. In their view, the federal government went from a huge unverified number to a small number, and then to zero. That outcome, they say, is not a political victory for either side. It is proof that Nevada’s election system, with all of its checks and balances, did what it was designed to do. The article, ultimately, is not a defense of any candidate or party. It is a defense of the process that allows election results to be tested, verified, and accepted by the people they affect.