Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Marriage equality: Defendants in Sevcik v. Sandoval respond to complaint filing

Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials Sevcik v Sandoval

By Scottie Thomaston

Thanks to Kathleen for posting these in Quick Hits

Last week, Nevada’s Governor Sandoval responded to the complaint in Sevcik v. Sandoval, the case that alleges Nevada’s marriage laws relegate same-sex relationships to a lesser status of domestic partnerships while affording almost all the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage and thus violate the Equal Protection Clause. His office responded by filing a motion to dismiss based on a 1971 Supreme Court precedent, Baker v. Nelson.

There are four defendants in the case, and now all of the defendants have responded to the complaint:

There are four defendants in Sevcik v. Sandoval: Gov. Sandoval, the county clerks for two Nevada counties and the clerk-recorder for Carson City, all in their official capacities. Yesterday, Gov. Sandoval responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss. Today, the remaining three defendants filed their responses to plaintiffs’ complaint.

The responses are:

Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover’s Joinder in Gov. Sandoval’s motion to dismiss.

Washoe County Clerk Amy Harvey’s answer to plaintiffs’ complaint.

Clark County Clerk Diana Alba’s answer to plaintiffs’ complaint.

The Carson City Clerk-Recorder is simply joining Governor Sandoval’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because of Baker v. Nelson. The other two responses are more interesting. They are answers to the specific facts and claims in the original complaint which is here.

Washoe County Clerk Any Harvey’s response says in the introduction that:

Preliminarily, however, Ms. Harvey wishes to express that she has no intention to defend the substantive merits of this case and has agreed to be bound by the final decision herein.

The response goes on to say that the plaintiffs can’t seek relief from her, essentially because she has to follow existing law:

Plaintiffs’ Complaint on file herein fails to state a claim against this Defendant upon which relief may be granted, as the county clerk has a ministerial duty to abide by the lawsof the State of Nevada and has no authority to disregard the law.

The Clark County Clerk denies that the court has jurisdiction over the case. Their answer denies many of the points made in the original complaint, such as:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. The conduct of Defendants and their agents in enforcing Nevada Constitution article 1, § 21, and Nevada Revised Statutes § 122.020, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples and restrict them solely to registered domestic partnership, violates Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the laws by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and sex.

And it denies the claims in the paragraph of the complaint that suggest heightened scrutiny should be applied:

Although the denial of equal treatment is invalid under any form of constitutional scrutiny, differential treatment by the government based on Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation warrants at least heightened scrutiny. The government’s differential treatment of Plaintiffs based on their sex also warrants heightened scrutiny.

Since they deny the court has jurisdiction, the answer asks for the case to be dismissed.


  • 1. Sagesse  |  May 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm


  • 2. Bill S.  |  May 23, 2012 at 2:03 am

    This lawsuit won't go anywhere. The filibuster is poor policy but unfortunately perfectly constitutional.

  • 3. Simon  |  May 23, 2012 at 7:59 am

    Homophobic haters are antiChrist who do not believe or pretend to believe in Jesus Christ but do not acknowledge His 2 commandments to love God and to love thy neighbor as thyself, which are the highest of all biblical laws. The antiChrist work with the devil who is the master of quoting biblical verses except those 2 top commandments of love from Christ, to disagree, to avoid using Christ name but other name even 'god', to bring all sort of biblical verses and to lie. Their objective is to deceive people that those 2 commandments of love were not above all laws for Christians.

    The issue of homosexuality among any other issues is a test of the Christian faith on that choice of who they really believe in the end, to love (stay with Christ to follow His commandments) or to hate (succumb to temptation of verses NOT from Christ and his top commandments and to justify their hatred).

  • 4. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  May 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    […] in Sevcik v. Sandoval, the marriage equality case filed in Nevada: the rest of the defendants responded to the initial […]

  • 5. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    […] and we first covered Governor Sandoval’s response, then subsequently saw the filings from the other three […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!