Every federal lawsuit in Nevada comes with a short form most people never read: the Certificate of Interested Parties. Its job is simple. It tells the judges who has a financial or corporate stake in the case (parent companies, subsidiaries, insurers, anyone standing behind a party) so a judge can step aside if there’s a conflict.
In most cases, it reads like a corporate org chart. Mine doesn’t.
Two names. That’s the whole list.
The certificate I filed in Barnhill v. Aguilar names exactly two parties: me, a Nevada voter, and Francisco V. Aguilar, sued in his official capacity as Nevada Secretary of State.
Under the court’s rules, I certified that:
- I’m a natural person, not a corporation, partnership, or LLC.
- No parent company, subsidiary, affiliate, or corporate owner stands behind this case.
- No insurer is involved.
- I’m the real party in interest. Nobody else is bringing this case through me.
One voter, not a national committee
That matters because of what the Secretary of State has asked the court to do. Instead of answering my complaint, he asked the court to pause my case indefinitely while a different voter-roll lawsuit plays out, one brought by the Republican National Committee.
That case is between a national party committee and the state. Mine is between one Nevada voter and the official responsible for keeping the voter rolls accurate. No national committee, corporation, or advocacy group is behind it. I asked the court to consolidate or coordinate the two cases rather than set mine aside, because a voter’s claim shouldn’t have to wait behind a party’s.
The part the rules don’t let me write down
There’s one more paragraph in that certificate, and it’s the one I care about most:
“Plaintiff is aware that accurate voter-list maintenance under the National Voter Registration Act is a matter of public concern to Nevada electors generally.”
The rule exists to flag judicial conflicts, not civic ones, so I couldn’t list every registered Nevada voter as an interested party. It wouldn’t help the judge, and it isn’t what the rule is for. But that’s who this case is really for.
My analysis found 9,607 Nevadans with duplicate active voter registrations, which produced 12,465 matched registration pairs. Each pair shows a 2024 General Election vote recorded under both registration numbers. I’m not alleging fraud. I’m asking for an audit, a reconciliation, public reporting, and a statewide duplicate-detection program, because accurate rolls are how every lawful vote keeps its full weight.
So if you’re a Nevada voter, you won’t find your name on that certificate. You have the biggest stake in the case anyway.
What comes next
The Secretary of State’s motions to stay and to extend time, my opposition and motion to consolidate, and my request for electronic filing access are all pending before the court. I’ll post every filing here as it happens, so you don’t have to take anyone’s word for what’s going on, including mine.
— Brad Lee Barnhill
#YourIndependentVoice for Nevada Secretary of State
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 Secretary of State Aguilar moved the Court to stay Barnhill’s case indefinitely until a separate lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee is resolved. Barnhill opposed the stay and asked the Court to consolidate or coordinate the two cases instead. See While the Secretary of State Asks for More Time, I’m Asking the Court to Move Faster.
September 28, 2026 Barnhill’s Certificate of Interested Parties, dated September 28, certified that the only parties to the case are Barnhill, a Nevada voter, and the Secretary of State, with no corporate backers, affiliates, or insurer. See The Court Asked Who Has a Stake in My Lawsuit. The Honest Answer Is You.
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. See I’ve Asked the Court to Rule on My E-Filing Request.
Latest update: The Court Asked Who Has a Stake in My Lawsuit. The Honest Answer Is You.
I took the Secretary of State to federal court to protect your vote. Has your candidate?
2 thoughts on “The Court Asked Who Has a Stake in My Lawsuit. The Honest Answer Is You.”