Good morning, I wanted to take a minute here and respond to all of you who asked me how the two Democrats, Commissioner Hill and Andriola, can certify their own election.

It’s a tricky one for sure, especially as Commissioner Andriola was the tie breaker. She claims to be Republican but is supported by Democrats financially, and Andriola supports the Democrats through her votes on the commission.

So, to answer your question, let’s look to the laws, statutes, and codes.

The question being, should a Washoe County Commissioner running for reelection recuse themselves from certifying election results, especially when they serve as the tie-breaking vote?

Relevant Legal Provisions

  1. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS):
    • NRS 281A.400: Addresses standards for ethical conduct by public officers and employees, prohibiting conflicts of interest.
    • NRS 281A.420: Requires public officers to disclose any conflicts of interest and abstain from voting on matters where they have a significant pecuniary interest.
    • NRS 293.387: Details the procedures for canvassing the vote and certifying election results.
  2. Nevada Administrative Code (NAC):
    • NAC 281A: Contains regulations interpreting the ethical standards and procedures outlined in the NRS.


Conflict of Interest

Under NRS 281A.420, a public officer must disclose any conflict of interest and abstain from voting when their personal interests could materially affect their decision-making. A commissioner running for reelection and involved in certifying their election results has a direct personal and pecuniary interest in the outcome. This situation creates a clear conflict of interest.

Recusal Requirement

Given the conflict of interest, the commissioner should recuse themselves from participating in the certification process to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the election. The ethical obligation to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain public trust supports this action. Recusal would ensure that the certification process is free from any undue influence or appearance of impropriety.

Tie-Breaking Vote and Ethical Implications

The fact that the commissioner acted as the tie-breaking vote to certify the election results in which they were a candidate exacerbates the ethical concerns. This situation not only represents a conflict of interest but also undermines public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the electoral process. To avoid ethical issues, an independent body or remaining commissioners without conflicts should handle such decisions.


The commissioner should have recused themselves from certifying the election results due to the inherent conflict of interest. Their participation as the tie-breaking vote raises significant ethical and legal concerns, potentially violating NRS 281A.420. Recusal would have been the appropriate course of action to uphold ethical standards and ensure public trust in the election process. If such conflicts arise, it may be necessary to involve an independent entity or follow alternative procedural mechanisms to ensure impartial certification of election results, which did not happen.

So yes, it appears to be in violation of the law and oath of office.

It’s worth mentioning that both Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Herman voted against certifying the canvass of the vote. They didn’t even mention the even more damning issues in which this election should never be certified, as seen here:

Additionally worth mentioning is that Commissioner Andriola did her patented “playing dumb” routine, where she says things like, “Golly gee, well, I guess I just have to do it.” Meanwhile, DA Kandaras downplays the significance of the canvass of the vote and what it really means. Her interpretation is critically flawed as the statute is clear:


NRS 293.387 outlines the procedures for the canvass of returns and the preparation and certification of the abstract of votes by the board of county commissioners. This statute ensures that the canvassing process accurately reflects the votes cast in an election and mandates specific actions to correct any clerical errors.

Key Provisions

  1. Canvass of Returns:
    • The board of county commissioners must meet and canvass the returns as soon as all precincts and district returns are received.
    • The canvass must be completed within 10 days following the election.
  2. Procedures During Canvass:
    • Note any clerical errors discovered separately.
    • Make necessary changes so that the declared result represents the true vote.
  3. Abstract of Results:
    • The county clerk must enter the abstract of the result into the board’s records immediately after the result is declared.
    • The abstract must include the number of votes cast for each candidate.
    • The board must order the county clerk to certify the abstract and make copies, including a mechanized report, and transmit them to the Secretary of State within 10 days following the election.
  4. Secretary of State’s Role:
    • Compile returns for candidates voted for in more than one county.
    • File an abstract of the returns and certify the nominated candidates to the county clerks.

Implications of Certifying an Erroneous Canvass

If a commissioner certifies a canvass of the vote that contains significant errors, several outcomes and potential consequences could arise:

  1. Legal Challenges:
    • The certification of erroneous results could lead to legal challenges from candidates or voters. The courts may be asked to review and potentially overturn the certification.
  2. Ethical Violations:
    • Certifying incorrect results could be considered a breach of ethical duties under NRS 281A, leading to investigations by the Nevada Commission on Ethics. If found in violation, the commissioner could face sanctions, including fines, censure, or other disciplinary actions.
  3. Impact on Election Integrity:
    • Errors in certification can undermine public trust in the electoral process, leading to questions about the legitimacy of the election results.
  4. Administrative Remedies:
    • The county may have procedures to correct errors in the certification process. This could involve reconvening the board to address the discrepancies and issue a corrected certification.
  5. Potential Removal from Office:
    • If the errors are found to be the result of gross negligence or intentional misconduct, the commissioner could face removal from office. NRS 283.440 outlines the procedures for removing public officers for malfeasance, neglect of duty, or other causes.


Certifying a canvass of the vote with significant errors is a serious issue with potential legal, ethical, and administrative consequences. Commissioners are expected to ensure the accuracy of the results they certify, and failure to do so can lead to a loss of public trust, legal challenges, and personal repercussions for the commissioner involved. The integrity of the election process relies on diligent and accurate certification of results, and mechanisms are in place to address and rectify any errors that may occur.

So there you have it.

It’s my and the team’s opinion that Andriola violated the statutes by certifying her own election.

District Attorney Kandaras gave flawed advice to the commissioners. Yes, they must meet to canvass the vote, but nothing states they have to vote yes to certify it. Especially when it was trash. Just wait until all the facts come out.

Our county leadership is corrupt or incompetent.

These corrupt or incompetent officials can’t even get it right when they did certify it. Online, it said it failed, as you see here:

But verbally, they say it passed. They can’t even get this right, but somehow got the election right…………

So what do we do?

Peacefully call out the corrupt and the corruption. All they can do is call you names, lie about you, like they do about me, but we will win.

We will win.



Make sure to attend Freedom Friday this Friday.

RSVP here:

You won’t want to miss it!

These thoughts, statements, and opinions are my own, not of any club, committee, organization, etc.

Follow us on:

Share This Content