Not every update in Barnhill v. Aguilar is going to be about voter rolls. Today’s is about something much more mundane — and, honestly, a little absurd.

I filed a motion asking the federal court for permission to file my own paperwork electronically.

The problem

Federal courts run on an electronic filing system called CM/ECF. Attorneys use it every day. When you’re representing yourself, like I am in this case, you’re allowed to ask the court for permission to use it too — but the standard registration process only recognizes one kind of applicant: a licensed attorney.

I tried to register anyway. It got rejected. When I asked why, the court’s Attorney Registration office pointed me to the “Motion for Admission to Practice” — a form that requires you to certify you’re an active member in good standing of the State Bar of Nevada, and to have a sponsor who’s a member of the federal bar.

I’m not an attorney. I’ve never claimed to be one. I’m not asking to practice law or represent anyone but myself. So I couldn’t sign that form truthfully, and I wasn’t going to try.

Why this is worth mentioning at all

Because it’s a small example of the same thing I keep saying about the Secretary of State’s office: most of the friction people run into with government isn’t malice, it’s process built around an assumption that doesn’t fit everyone. The court’s registration system assumes every self-represented filer is either a licensed attorney or doesn’t need electronic access. Neither was true here, so the process didn’t work — until someone pointed at the actual rule that solves it.

That’s the same instinct I’d bring to this office. Twenty-plus years of drafting, filing, and tracking documents through court systems doesn’t stop being useful just because the case is my own.

One more thing worth being upfront about, since I ask for the same transparency from Nevada’s election system: this filing includes a required certification disclosing that AI assistance was used in preparing part of it, and that I personally reviewed it for accuracy before it went to the court. I don’t think that kind of disclosure should be unusual. It should be the default.

I’ll post an update once the court rules on the request.