A Carson City judge on Friday ruled that forgery charges against Nevada’s six so-called “fake electors” can proceed to a higher court, a decision that came nearly five years after Republicans’ efforts to overturn Nevada’s 2020 election for President Donald Trump.

The decision from Justice of the Peace Derek Dreiling means the six defendants will be arraigned in district court, which is set for Oct. 27.

In preliminary hearings, a judge has to decide whether there is “slight or marginal evidence” that the defendants committed the crimes in question. Still, there must be enough evidence that “make some theory probable,” Dreiling said Friday.

In his ruling, Dreiling said it was the “hardest call I’ve had to make in my career,” but that the evidence narrowly favored the prosecution.

Lawyers for the defendants declined to comment on Friday. The attorney general’s office also declined to comment because the case is still pending.

The hearing included testimony and hours of cross-examination of an investigator with the attorney general’s office and a top state elections official. A subpoenaed video also depicted the six defendants signing certificates awarding Nevada’s six electoral votes to Trump.

Then-candidate Joe Biden defeated Trump by about 33,000 votes in Nevada in 2020, but a scheme emerged in several states to overturn the results based on unsubstantiated claims of mass electoral fraud.

The state argued the defendants forged documents when they falsely claimed to be the state’s electors. Forgery is a category D felony, which carries a penalty of between one and four years in prison. Central to the case is whether the signed documents were forged and if the defendants had an “intent to defraud” when signing the certificates.

Some of the most prominent Nevada Republicans are among the fake electors, including Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald, Vice Chair Jim Hindle and Republican National Committeeman Jim DeGraffenreid. The other three defendants are then-Clark County GOP Chairman Jesse Law, Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice.

All defendants were present during the hearing, the first time that occurred in the nearly two years of legal proceedings.

The hearing came 10 months after Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford’s office filed forgery charges in Carson City. Ford was not present at the hearing. A Texas fundraiser for his gubernatorial bid took place on Thursday.

The state initially tried to prosecute the fake electors in Clark County, but a judge dismissed the case last year after determining it was not an appropriate jurisdiction for the case. That decision is pending an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in August.

A jury in Carson City — where Trump won 54 percent of the vote in 2020 and 2024 — is likely to be more favorable to the Republican defendants than Clark County, which leans Democratic.

Legal arguments

The state’s argument centered around the signing ceremony that occurred in front of the Nevada Legislature on Dec. 14, 2020, the same day where the state’s Democratic electors cast ballots for Biden and Kamala Harris, the vice presidential candidate.

The hearing included the playing of a subpoenaed video from Right Side Broadcasting Network that depicts the six defendants signing certificates to award the state’s electoral votes to Trump and then-Vice President Mike Pence.

“There’s no question that the documents offered by the defendants were false at the time of this meeting,” prosecutor Alissa Engler said. “The duly qualified electors for the state of Nevada were the Democratic Party electors, not the defendants.”

But the defense argued that the documents were not forged. True forgery, it contended, would have involved altering the documents for the state’s true electors.

“The certificate was nothing other than what it reported to be: The Nevada GOP’s own slate of electors,” said Maggie McLetchie, an attorney representing Law.

Prosecutors called two witnesses to the stand on Thursday: Todd Grosz, an investigator with the attorney general’s office, and Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Mark Wlaschin. Much of the testimony centered on previously public information, such as the path of the signed documents, which were sent to the state’s top federal judge, secretary of state’s office, vice president and National Archives. 

Prosecutors said that these decisions represented an intent to defraud, which is an element of the forgery charge.

“The mere fact that they sent those documents to the correct agencies shows that there was an intent” to defraud, Engler said.

However, lawyers representing the defendants argued that they did not intend to defraud and that the signed documents did not hold any weight because they did not include the state seal or signatures from the secretary of state and governor. The certificates signed by the true Democratic electors contained this information.

When defense lawyers cross-examined Wlaschin, he reiterated prior comments that state election officials were aware the GOP electors’ documents did not hold any weight. Prosecutors said that even if the documents had been incomplete, it still constitutes forgery.

The secretary of state also did not oversee the Republican signing ceremony, as is required, according to testimony from Wlaschin.

The defendants said the ceremony did take place in case legal challenges to the state’s election results were successful, citing some of their comments from the day of the ceremony. All presidential electors were required to conduct signing ceremonies on that day.

Six days before the ceremony, the Nevada Supreme Court tossed out Republicans’ efforts to challenge the results, but there was still an opportunity to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, even though that never materialized.

Additionally, there were efforts from a Trump campaign lawyer to include language on the signed documents that the declarations were contingent on successful legal challenges, but that was ultimately not included. The defendants were not privy to these conversations.  

“Their purpose was only to preserve the right to challenge the election,” McLetchie said.

Prosecutors argued that because all prior legal challenges had failed, the defendants were actively trying to change the election outcome, regardless of the court rulings.

Tensions 

Tensions at the hearing largely centered on the prosecution’s decision to not compel the testimony of Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney for the Trump campaign who’s seen as the architect for the fake elector plans. Chesebro has cooperated with state investigators.

The prosecution had previously subpoenaed Chesebro, but ultimately decided not to ask him to testify, which the defense said it learned less than one day before the hearing began.

“We got sandbagged,” said defense attorney Richard Wright, who is representing McDonald.

The prosecution argued it had no obligation to follow through with the subpoena.

Ultimately, the defense wanted the judge to delay the proceedings so that Chesebro or his attorney could testify, but he declined to do so.

Updated on 10/17/25 at 2 p.m. to correct that the defense wanted to delay proceedings for Chesebro to testify, not the prosecution.