Failed GOP congressional candidate Jim Marchant lost in court on Friday in his longshot bid at a Clark County re-do election.
Endorsed by fellow disappointed candidate Donald Trump, failed Republican contender Jim Marchant lost his congressional election convincingly this cycle to his Democratic rival Steven Horsford by more than five points and 16,000 votes for Nevada’s District 4.
Marchant lost again on Friday—this time in court. His legal team left a Clark County judge befuddled as to why they alleged massive shenanigans in Nevada’s voting systems but sought a re-vote only in the Democratic stronghold of a typically red state.
“We are leaving out six other counties in an election for a congressional seat,” Judge Gloria Sturman of Clark County’s Eighth Judicial District remarked from the bench on Friday. “I don’t see how I can do that.”
“I just don’t feel like I have jurisdiction,” she added.
Neither did counsel for Clark County Clerk Joe Gloria nor the Democratic National Committee, who took turns roasting the theories brought forward by Marchant’s counsel Craig Mueller.
Long on allegations and short on details, Mueller took issue with the state’s Agilis mail-in ballot processing system, trying to cast doubt on their signature-matching verification apparatus.
“The flooding of ballots that should not have been mailed coupled with the Agilis mail ballot processing machine being utilized for signature verification that is not permitted calls the integrity of the election and the results into question,” Mueller wrote in his complaint.
Mueller continued that rhetoric in court, earning a rebuke from Clark County Clerk Gloria’s counsel Mary-Anne Meyers.
“Mr. Mueller said some extraordinary things, and they’re all completely baseless,” Meyers said, adding that he got basic facts about the machine wrong.
Kevin Hamilton, the lawyer for the Democrats, noted the Agilis machine is widely used.
Similar claims were rejected following a 10-hour evidentiary hearing earlier.
Marchant tried to get a new evidentiary hearing, but the judge denied that, finding the court lacked jurisdiction to preside over one.
Beyond establishing the right to sue, Marchant also lost because the math was not on his side. In an incantation-style argument, the attorney for the Democrats noted the disappointed candidate would need to have vaulted three hurdles: establishing illegal votes, showing for whom they were cast, and proving they came in at high enough numbers to make a difference in his case.
“He fails at that,” Hamilton stated three times, once for each evidentiary standard Marchant could not reach.
Trump and his campaign were not parties to the lawsuit.
[Image via YouTube screengrab]
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow Law&Crime:
