How one inmate's clemency request took over the Nevada's governor race

The Nevada Board of Pardons is the definition of a slow, thorough and deliberative government body, taking just 16 cases a year. 

Now clashing campaign ads in the Nevada governor's race have thrown a dramatic spotlight on the normally quiet board that weighs the fate of people convicted of crimes who ask for reconsideration.

One of the ads from supporters of Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) criticized Attorney General Aaron Ford (D) for sponsoring a 2025 application to consider clemency for Norman Smith, a man convicted of voluntary manslaughter after killing a pregnant woman in 2015. 

"Most Nevadans would call for life in prison at the least," the ad said. 

Ford's campaign responded with its own ad challenging the GOP narrative around the case. 

The ads are being seen. As of Thursday afternoon, Ford's ad has generated more than 179,000 impressions over the last nine days and has nearly $350,000 behind it according to ad-tracking firm AdImpact, while the one backing Lombardo has generated about 2.3 million impressions and has $2.1 million behind it.

Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson (D) also endorsed Lombardo about two weeks after the details first hit the news cycle, the first time he had done so. Wolfson's endorsement didn't mention the Smith case, but cited Lombardo's record on safety — a recent campaign ad from Lombardo touts Wolfson's endorsement.

On Wednesday, a group of Lombardo-backing law enforcement officials criticized Ford for the clemency sponsorship. Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas), who is running for attorney general, also distanced herself from Ford and said she would not have sponsored the clemency petition. 

Ford's office declined an interview request but said in a statement that Norman Smith's mother requested the application, that it was a sentencing modification, not early release and that Ford would have voted against the clemency application had he not missed the meeting for an undisclosed family emergency. 

The Nevada Independent spoke to legal experts and members of the board, including the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, to break down how the board operates, the case and explain the political uproar.

What is the Nevada Board of Pardons Commissioners? 

The state Constitution establishes the nine-member board and authorizes it to commute punishments, remit fines or forfeitures and grant pardons for state-level criminal convictions. The board must meet quarterly and cannot grant pardons for treason, impeachments or in sentences of death or life without the option of parole.

The nine members consist of the governor, the attorney general and the seven justices of the state Supreme Court.

Any board member may raise an issue for the full board's consideration, meaning they can sponsor an application, and every vote carries equal weight. 

To grant a pardon or commute a sentence, a majority of the nine-member board must vote in favor, and at least five members must vote in favor regardless of the total number of board members present. Clemency can take different forms, such as a full pardon or a sentence commutation.

Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Douglas Herndon, who sits on the board, told The Nevada Independent the board considers the equity of past sentences and the rehabilitation of people who are incarcerated. He said many who come before the board are asking for the opportunity to be released from prison after serving decades with no disciplinary problems.

"There's 10,000-plus people in Nevada prisons. … We should be able to find 16 people a year that seem to merit some consideration," he said.

What is the difference between a commutation and a pardon?

A sentence commutation means reducing a criminal punishment or penalty to a lesser one. 

Commutations do not mean a person is innocent or a crime is forgiven, and the underlying criminal conviction remains on the permanent record.

It can be granted for a variety of reasons: old age, terminal illness, good behavior in prison or if the original sentence seems too harsh.

A pardon forgives a crime and restores a person's civil rights. It does not mean someone is legally innocent, but it removes many of the legal penalties and social stigmas of a crime.

Pardons are usually granted after a person has finished serving their sentence and demonstrated good behavior.

In 2025, the pardons board commuted 8 sentences, denied 4 applicants and issued conditional pardons for 2, with one of those including a commutation.

What was Smith asking for and would it have led him to be released?

An attorney representing Smith, Kristina Wildeveld, wrote a December 2025 email to the board asking for Smith to be placed on the pardons board agenda for a sentence commutation.

Wildeveld wrote that Smith, who is serving time separately for charges of robbery with a deadly weapon and voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon in 2015, was requesting "that his sentences be commuted to run concurrently, or his robbery charge be commuted to that of his co-defendant's so that he can either be immediately eligible for parole or eligible in another three (3) years."

Approving the request would not have meant Smith would be released, but it would have given him the opportunity to go before the parole board sooner.

What does it mean to sponsor an application?

Sponsoring an application means a member of the pardons board puts someone's case on the agenda for consideration.

Applications can come from the convicted person, their family, an attorney, the Nevada Department of Corrections or other groups or individuals. But only board members can place them on the agenda.

Herndon said sponsoring does not mean promising to vote for clemency. It only means the sponsor believes the case merits consideration by the full board. 

Only four inmate cases can be considered per meeting, or 16 per year.

"The short answer is, when you sponsor somebody, you're not saying, 'Yeah, I'm absolutely going to vote to give you a pardon,'" Herndon said. "There are occasions where people have sponsored individuals and then ended up voting no … there may be things that come out during the hearing that you're like, 'whoa, I didn't know that.'"

Why did Ford sponsor Norman Smith's application?

Smith shot and killed the pregnant woman, Tineshea Adams, while he was out on bail in connection with a series of coordinated armed robbery attacks with other people on Strip tourists. Court records indicate Smith argued the killing was a result of self-defense, and though he was initially charged with murder, he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Separately, Smith was charged in the robbery attacks along with his co-defendants.

The judge ruled that the sentences for the robbery and manslaughter run consecutively for a total of 18-59 years.

John Sadler, a spokesperson for the attorney general's office, wrote in a statement that Ford considered placing Smith's sentencing modification request on the agenda following a request from Smith's mother, Treena Smith, a school teacher who had been diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. 

Sadler said Ford sponsored the application specifically for Smith's robbery charge after reading a letter of support from Michael Schwartzer in the December request, an attorney in the Clark County District Attorney's Office who helped prosecute Smith's case. 

That letter was originally sent to the parole board — separate from the pardons board — about Smith's robbery sentence.

Schwartzer, who wrote the letter in a personal capacity, noted that Smith received a significantly longer prison sentence than any of his co-defendants, including one convicted of more felony charges. He said Smith should be granted parole on his robbery sentence, but did not mention the separate manslaughter charge.

Sadler wrote that the letter prompted Ford to put it on the agenda,"[b]ut he expressly informed Mr. Smith's mother that he would need to hear all of the evidence before making a final decision on the case."

But Schwartzer in his official role with the district attorney's office wrote a separate letter to the pardons board opposing clemency this year.

"The sentencing judge noted that Defendant should not 'get a free ride or that this killing should be without consequences because of the other crimes that he committed,'" Schwartzer wrote to the pardons board. "The judge ordered that the sentence run consecutive, noting Defendant has prior experience of firing his weapon at individuals."

Smith's mother is a well-known community member and teacher who has worked with at-risk students for nearly four decades. She is also a member of the Clark County Black Caucus, which endorsed Ford in 2018 when he first ran for attorney general. She wrote a letter of support for Smith's application, vouching for her son and noting his growth.

In her letter requesting the review, Smith's mother, Treena, wrote that a sentencing disparity between her son and his co-defendant amounted to "a grave inequality in the justice system."

"Norman's co-defendant went to trial and was found guilty of 12 charges, he was sentenced to 5 years. Norman took a deal for 3 charges, and received 10-39 years," she wrote, referring to the robbery charges.

Has Ford sponsored applications in the past?

The pardons board did not begin disclosing pardon sponsorships until the Sept. 16 meeting, where Ford was listed as sponsor for "Norman Smith … Robbery with Use of Deadly Weapon x3 and Voluntary Manslaughter with Use of Deadly Weapon in 2015."

Herndon said the decision to list sponsors was made this June as part of an effort to be more transparent with the public, especially given the limited number of slots before the board. Internally, he said the board doesn't know who sponsored an application until the agenda is released.

Ford's office and campaign did not respond to questions about whether the attorney general has sponsored past applications and how he voted on those.

In a statement, Sadler wrote, "Pardons Board members sponsoring applications to check on the progress of an inmate is standard and doesn't mean a member will vote in favor of said application, as evidenced by numerous unanimous board votes against applications for clemency."

How did Ford vote on the application?

Ford did not attend the September pardons board meeting and did not vote on Smith's application. 

He informed the board more than 24 hours earlier that he had a family emergency, per records reviewed by The Nevada Independent. 

Sadler wrote that Ford "reviewed the hearing and Smith's file and can unequivocally state that he would have voted no to any form of clemency or sentence modification for Norman Smith."

Ford has not answered questions directed through his staff or the campaign about the nature of the family emergency.

On Sept. 22, Fox News first reported that Ford had dodged questions about his clemency support as he departed his plane at a Las Vegas airport the day of the hearing. Ford has not addressed his arrival to Las Vegas.

The Lombardo campaign criticized Ford in a press release for arriving in Las Vegas as the meeting was ongoing and attending a campaign event later that day.

A spokesperson for Ford's campaign said Ford was on a plane while Smith's case was being heard. The spokesperson said Ford arrived at the campaign event at 6 p.m. — about 15 minutes before the pardons board hearing ended.

Could Lombardo have stopped the item from being heard?

The short answer is no.

The longer answer is that prior to 2020, the governor had effective veto power over pardons and needed to be part of the majority for any board decision.

The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) outlines a process allowing the governor to remove a case from the agenda to avoid wasting time and effort.

A ballot initiative passed in 2020 removed the governor's special powers on the board. Now, any member can sponsor someone on the agenda, and every member's vote has equal weight.

Though NAC still outlines the veto process, Alena Thurston, the executive secretary for the Board of Pardons, wrote in an email that "the NAC does need to be updated, as that ability was removed with the 2020 ballot."

Political fallout and public criticism

Two weeks after Fox News publicized Smith's clemency application, Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson (D) endorsed Lombardo, citing his public-safety record.

The endorsement didn't explicitly mention Smith's situation, but Wolfson did not endorse Lombardo in 2022. He donated to Lombardo's campaign in 2024.

Other criminal justice advocates have criticized Ford for sponsoring an application he said he would have voted against.

People spend years trying to get on the pardons board agenda, said Jodi Hocking with Return Strong!, an organization dedicated to ending mass incarceration and advocating for criminal justice reform. She said it's a problem that Ford said he would sponsor Smith but couldn't promise he would vote yes because he wanted to hear all the evidence, given the limited number of applications the full board reviews.

"Sponsoring someone is supposed to mean you've looked at the case and you think it deserves to be heard," she said. "Ford changed the rules for one person and gave away a spot that someone else has been waiting years for. That's not how this is supposed to work."

Hocking added that the board should have clearer guidelines and regulations for the sponsorship process. 

She said that could entail putting sponsorship standards in writing, applying rules related to extenuating circumstances equally, creating an independent application review process and vetting cases before they go on an agenda.

"People inside are told to follow the process and wait their turn, and they do," she said. "Even though the process itself is problematic and erratic. The board should hold itself to the same standard."

Herndon said sponsorship indicates merit for consideration, but sponsors can still vote no after the hearing.

Asked about the limited slots for board consideration, he acknowledged that access to the agenda is a bottleneck and that good candidates may still be excluded.

"Having the pardons process is a good thing," he said. "Having a pardons process that makes equal opportunity for people that don't have attorneys that are worthy to get in front of us is a much better thing."