Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) is proposing new voter ID requirements as part of a potential deal with Gov. Joe Lombardo to resurrect a vetoed effort to increase the number of ballot drop boxes in the days leading up to an election.

The proposal, obtained by The Nevada Independent, is set to be introduced as an amendment to AB499, an otherwise innocuous election bill related to the publication of a voter services portal on county clerks' websites.

The prospective deal follows initial conversations between Democrats and the governor’s office and would mark a significant shift in Democrats’ stance on voter ID. The party previously argued that these requirements could disenfranchise low-income voters and even unsuccessfully sued to block a ballot question last year that more than 70 percent of voters later approved in the 2024 election.

A Democratic political operative, given anonymity to speak freely about the proposal, said that ballot measure is likely to pass when it returns to voters next year. A deal this session would allow Democrats to ensure that the changes are implemented thoughtfully, the operative said, making it as easy as possible for voters to satisfy prospective identification requirements. 

The operative added that the resurrection of Yeager’s proposal to add more drop boxes after early voting ends and before Election Day will speed up election results and give voters more opportunities to return mail ballots — a priority for Democrats. 

The language for the measure is based on feedback from local clerks and election officials, the operative said, adding that it’s designed to enable them to successfully implement identification and verification requirements.

However, Douglas County Clerk Amy Burgans said in an email on Friday that county clerks did not learn of the amendment until after The Indy’s article was published, and that there are concerns with specific elements of the proposal.

Yeager and a spokesperson for Lombardo did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a statement, Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, who has previously opposed voter ID requirements, said “voters made their voices heard at the ballot box supporting similar changes” and that he is “committed to ensuring that new laws are implemented without any unforeseen consequences that would limit the constitutional right to vote for our citizens.”

In a Friday letter, a progressive coalition urged lawmakers to reject the amendment, saying it would “create obstructive and unconstitutional barriers” for voters.

“The proposed amendment to AB499 suggests a reckless and legally dubious creation of voter identification laws, including provisions that would threaten Nevadans’ fundamental right to vote under the state Constitution,” the letter said. “Any attempt at strengthening Nevada’s election security through voter I.D. laws would come in a world where voter fraud is extraordinarily rare, and where voter impersonation — the alleged fraud at the heart of voter I.D. — is even rarer.”

Athar Haseebullah, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, one of the coalition's members, called the proposal unsound. 

“I’d imagine most Democratic voters would prefer their elected officials fight for the working class, push back against the myths of voter fraud, limit government intrusion into people’s lives, and treat people with dignity instead of the Diet-Republican policies they seem to be getting,” Haseebullah said. “If Democrats wanted to vote for these types of policies, they’d likely just vote for Republicans.”

The proposal largely mirrors the language of last year’s ballot initiative, though if passed it would be implemented ahead of the 2026 elections instead of shortly before Nevada’s 2028 presidential primary.

It would require people voting by mail to provide the last four digits of their Social Security or driver’s license number, or their entire voter identification number. 

In a letter to lawmakers on Friday evening, the Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials said that relying on an ID number (rather than a signature) to verify the identity of someone voting by mail could lead to voter fraud because of the ease in which this information could be hacked.

“This … should be used as a secondary source of identification but should not replace the verified signature of a person as a means by which to cast a mail ballot,” the letter said.

The letter also said that a provision mandating election offices’ hours of operation during the mail ballot cure period (which lasts about two months) “represents a significant financial burden” and could particularly hinder rural offices that have significantly fewer staff members than urban offices.

In-person voters could use several forms of ID, including a driver’s license, university ID, passport or tribal identification card. If an in-person voter does not have a valid form of photo ID, they would be able to cast a provisional ballot and then must provide a valid ID by the Friday after an election for their vote to be counted. 

The proposal also seeks to assuage legal concerns brought in Democrat-backed lawsuits that a voter ID requirement would be akin to an unconstitutional poll tax because certain forms of ID are not free.

The amendment requires the secretary of state to issue voters a free digital identification card — another valid form of ID — and the Department of Motor Vehicles must provide free driver’s licenses to people who demonstrate that they are experiencing financial hardship.

Meanwhile, the ballot drop box proposal that Lombardo vetoed would require Clark County to make 10 ballot drop boxes available between the end of early voting and Election Day, a type of “dead zone” that Yeager previously said restricts people’s options to drop off mail ballots and could slow down ballot counting. Washoe County would have to install five drop boxes in that period, while rural counties are permitted to set up as many or as few drop boxes as they want.

In his veto message, Lombardo said the proposal was “well-intentioned” but “falls short of its stated goals while failing to guarantee appropriate oversight of the proposed ballot boxes or the ballots cast.”

The latest proposal contains the same security measures as the vetoed bill, requiring that all ballot drop boxes be monitored at all times when in use and secure at all other times.

Updated on 5/30/25 at 6:15 p.m. to include statements from progressive groups and attempts to reach representatives for Lombardo and the secretary of state's office, at 6:41 p.m. to include a statement from Aguilar and at 10:13 p.m. to include statements from county clerks.