An agenda item to discuss the creation of a citizens election advisory group was removed from Tuesday’s Board of County Commissioners meeting after Commissioner Jeanne Herman said it was insulting and belonged “somewhere the sunshine doesn’t exist.”
“From reading this item I see it’s a pretty sorry excuse for a document to create an election citizens advisory board as requested by this commissioner. It’s both insulting and deliberately void of requestor’s purpose,” Herman said.
She also alluded to an organized effort by some at the county to keep her from following the will of her constituents. “We all know who the enemies of the people are,” she said, echoing a phrase used by four-times indicted former President Donald Trump.
The elections board was Herman’s idea, but she said she didn’t like the end result.
She for months has suggested the county form a citizens advisory board to provide feedback from the community to election officials.
In a July 11 proposal to commissioners, she suggested a permanent board that would have seven members appointed by the commission – one for each commission district and two at-large members, with “technical knowledge of election systems,” who would be appointed by the board as a whole.
The staff report for the agenda item proposed a renamed Citizen Election Forum, a modified version of Herman’s advisory group. The group would focus more on community outreach and feedback, along with high-level election issues, and avoid recommendations related to staffing and personnel or election policies out of the commission’s control.
It would meet just four times before being disbanded in January 2024.
Sample ballot printing hits a snag
Commissioners were asked to approve two separate contracts for printing sample ballots and official mail-in ballots for the 2024 presidential preference primary, primary and general elections.
An $815,000 contract with Runbeck Election Solutions for printing certified mail-in ballots was approved, but the sample ballots contract failed in a 3-2 vote with commissioners Andriola, Herman and Clark voting against the measure.
The proposed $650,000 contract for sample ballot printing was to go to ProVote Solutions, a printer based in Porterville, California. Commissioners Clara Andriola and Mike Clark said they would prefer the contract go to a local printer rather than be sent out of state.
“We don’t have a lot of time here to keep issuing RFPs.”
Registrar of Voters Jamie Rodriguez said the county’s open bid process was followed in soliciting printers for the job and they had reached out to southern Nevada-based Taylor Printing, the only in-state printer on the list. Three bids were submitted in the process, none of them from local printers.
Andriola urged that the request for proposals be reposted to extend the opportunity to local vendors, or allow one week for local printers to respond before potentially relaunching the RFP process – which would take seven weeks or more.
Rodriguez said reopening the process would add weeks to an already tight timeline, emphasizing concerns that printers are still grappling with paper shortages. She said mid-September was the deadline to provide a page count to the vendor.
“I would just caution, I don’t know that a vendor could guarantee a contract that we wouldn’t be able to award until early October for sample ballots to be mailed in December,” Rodriguez said. She added that extending the timeline could result in no local vendors and losing the current proposed vendor as well.
County Comptroller Cathy Hill said she’d have to consult with the district attorney on reposting the RFP, but that the full RFP process would need to be followed to meet legal requirements.
“The expedited [process] in a week – that is not achievable,” Comptroller Hill said.
County Manager Eric Brown said finding a local printing source has come up several times over the past three years.
“When we did the outreach…we kept coming up with situations where they either didn’t have the equipment or the capability,” Brown said. “My recommendation to this commission: This is not something we want to mess with right now. This is something where you want to pick a vendor who has experience doing this kind of work with the kind of materials we need to use.”
He suggested that in parallel with the current printing job county staff could also develop more relationships with local vendors and confirm their capabilities for future jobs.
“We don’t have a lot of time here to keep issuing RFPs,” Brown added. “The print industry has changed. It is not what it used to be in this state or a lot of states. You have to be very careful.”
“We have an obligation to run an election,” Commission Chair Alexis Hill said. “I see this as a great discussion and this board needs to have this discussion on how we can support local companies. But I don’t think the ballots are the way that we need to be pushing that item today.”
Despite concerns from county staff that sample ballot printing would be delayed and disrupt the election timeline, Commissioner Clark moved to reject the proposed contract with Herman and Andriola voting for the measure. Commissioners Garcia and Hill voted against rejecting the proposal.
During the following agenda item to approve a printing contract for mail-in ballots, Clark said it was the “same song, different verse.”
The difference for selecting a mail-in ballot printer is the requirement that vendors be certified ballot printers, of which there is only one in Nevada, according to Rodriguez. She said Taylor Printing in Las Vegas did submit a proposal but scored much lower than Runbeck.
“There are no other verified, certified vendors to provide our ballots in the state,” Rodriguez said.
Commissioners Garcia, Hill and Andriola voted in favor of Runbeck printing the county’s mail-in ballots with Clark and Herman opposing.
