This morning I mailed the federal court a Notice of Lodging Proposed Order and Request for Ruling in Barnhill v. Aguilar (Case No. 2:26-cv-02818-JAD-MDC). It asks the Court to decide my motion to file electronically, which has been waiting since September 16.

Attached to it is a proposed order. That’s a ready-to-sign order laying out the facts, the rules that apply, and the relief requested. The judge can sign it, change it, or deny the motion. What it does is make the decision easy.

Why I asked

Self-represented citizens can’t use the federal court’s electronic filing system without the Court’s permission. Lawyers can. So I asked for permission on September 16 (ECF No. 5).

That motion was filed ex parte, which means no response from the other side is expected. It was ready for decision the day it was filed. The Secretary of State’s attorney appeared in the case on September 28 and has not opposed it.

Meanwhile, the mail keeps setting the pace:

• My filings: signed and mailed September 30, file-stamped October 1, and on the docket October 5.
• The Secretary of State’s filings: filed electronically September 28, mailed to me September 29, and in my mailbox October 5.

I wrote about that in Equal Access to the Courthouse Shouldn’t Depend on Having a Lawyer.

What I asked for, and what I didn’t

The request presents no new argument. It lists the dates from the docket and asks for a ruling. I served copies on the Secretary of State’s attorney and on counsel in the related RNC v. Aguilar case.

I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m asking for the same access the other side already has, while briefing deadlines are running on October 8 and October 15.

What comes next

Based on how my last filing went, this request should be file-stamped in a day or so and appear on the docket within about a week. The Court sets its own timing on a ruling. I’ll post an update when it rules.

This case is about 9,607 Nevadans with duplicate active voter registrations. I’m asking for an audit, not alleging fraud. Getting there means following the process, one filing at a time, by mail if I have to.

Results, Not Noise.
#YourIndependentVoice

Get to know me · Join the campaign · Donate

Barnhill v. Aguilar — Case Timeline

May 20, 2026 Barnhill submitted a sworn complaint concerning alleged duplicate voter-registration records to the Nevada Secretary of State’s Elections Division and Clark County officials. See Who Will Protect Your Vote?

June 3–4, 2026 Formal notice was sent under the National Voter Registration Act. The Secretary of State’s office closed its file on June 4 without, according to the complaint, disputing the underlying data analysis.

September 4, 2026 Barnhill filed Barnhill v. Aguilar, Case No. 2:26-cv-02818-JAD-MDC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

September 8, 2026 Secretary of State Francisco V. Aguilar and the Nevada Attorney General’s office were formally served with the lawsuit.

September 16, 2026 Barnhill filed an ex parte motion asking the Court to authorize him to register as a CM/ECF filing user and receive electronic service in this action under LR IC 2-1(b), since the standard registration process assumes an attorney applicant. See A Small Procedural Fight, With a Bigger Point Behind It.

September 28, 2026 Aguilar moves the Court to suspend my action indefinitely while another action Aguilar is defending against the Republican National Committee has completed. No way, Jose! I oppose the motion and request consolidation with the RNC action. See While the Secretary of State Asks for More Time, I’m Asking the Court to Move Faster.

October 1, 2026 Barnhill’s Opposition to the motions to stay and extend time (ECF No. 9), Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 10), and Notice of Related Cases (ECF No. 11) were filed by mail. They were not entered on the docket until October 5. The Court has not yet ruled on the September 16 e-filing motion. See Equal Access to the Courthouse Shouldn’t Depend on Having a Lawyer.

October 6, 2026 Barnhill mailed a Notice of Lodging Proposed Order and Request for Ruling on the September 16 e-filing motion, with a proposed order attached.

Latest update: I’ve Asked the Court to Rule on My E-Filing Request.