Seth A. Richardson

srichardson@rgj.com

A candidate for the Nevada Assembly is due in court Thursday over a challenge alleging he does not live in his stated district.

Jason Guinasso, a lawyer and partner at Reese, Kintz, Guinasso in Reno, is running for Assembly District 26, which includes a portion of south Reno, Washoe Valley and Incline Village. A civil case filed April 7 in Washoe District Court alleges his primary address is not in the district. The district attorney's office found there was enough cause to warrant an April 14 hearing.

Nevada law states a candidate must live in their district for 30 days prior to filing.

According to the Washoe County Registrar, Guinasso changed his address to Vincent Lane on Sep. 1, 2015. He announced his run for office two weeks later.

An affidavit filed by Crystal Bay resident Frank Wright claims Guinasso does not live at the 11210 Vincent Lane address he filed with the county, but instead resides at 3905 Garlan Lane. The Garlan Lane address is in Assembly District 25.

Property records show Guinasso still owns the Garlan Lane address while his wife’s family’s trust owns the Vincent Lane address. The mailing address for the Vincent Lane property is 190 W. Huffaker Ln. Ste. 402, the address for Guinasso’s law firm.

Wright states in the affidavit he believes the Incline Village General Improvement District have propped up Guinasso – their general counsel – and his law partner Devon Reese, who is running for Senate District 15 as a Democrat. He states the two have been “recruited by IVGID staff, trustees and/or local self-anointed community ‘movers and shakers’ to represent IVGID’s interests in the State Assembly.”

The main argument from a legal perspective, Guinasso said, is whether or not the Vincent Lane house is his primary home. He says it is and he is just staying at the Garlan Street home while major construction is taking place making it uninhabitable. He expects construction to be done by late summer.

In more than 100 pages of affidavits and exhibits, Guinasso said his family started living at the property in 2010 while caring for his father-in-law. They planned to build a house on an adjacent lot at 11200 Vincent Lane to stay out there and care for him, going so far as to acquire building plans, filing for permits and constructing a well.

His father-in-law died in 2013 and left the house to Guinasso's wife. Instead of building a new house, they decided to stay in his father-in-law’s home, which had fallen into disrepair and required extensive construction projects nearly gutting the home. Major construction began between late-2014 and early-2015, he said.

Guinasso said while dealing with his father-in-law, the house on Garlan Street was being renovated to the tune of $40,000 for use by Awaken, a local nonprofit combating sex trafficking. When it became apparent the Vincent Lane home would require major construction, Guinasso told the nonprofit he would need to reside in the Garlan Street home until it was completed.

Sandoval: Anti-commerce tax candidates doing a 'disservice' to state

Mellissa Holland, executive director of Awaken, provided an affidavit corroborating the claim.

“Although we were disappointed that we could not move into the Garlan house given the time and investment that we had committed to repairing the house, we understood the unique situation confronting the Guinassos and agreed to delay moving into the Garlan house until the repair and remodel of the new house was completed,” she stated in the affidavit.

Guinasso also provided affidavits from his neighbors stating they witnessed him living at the residence and attended barbecues at the property. Guinasso provided further affidavits showing he maintains the landscape, has running utilities and comes to the property every day to check progress and take care of his four dogs.

He conceded his voter registration was at the Garlan Street address for some time after he moved to Vincent Lane and said he essentially put the issue aside while dealing with family matters. He only thought about it in earnest when he considered running for office, he said.

“You know, if I was on top of everything and thinking about all that, I would have done it right away. But it wasn’t on the top of my mind,” he said.

He added his mailing address being at the law office was a matter of convenience. His house is in the country and his mailbox is a five minute drive away, making it easier to pick up mail at the office as well as have packages delivered, he said.

Guinasso said he hoped the challenge to his residency was simply a concerned citizen doing his due diligence, but expected a more nefarious motive.

“The person that we’re dealing with isn’t a reasonable person,” he said. “Frank Wright is a well-known community malcontent in Incline Village and Crystal Bay. He comes to every single IVGID meeting and berates me and the staff and calls us names and accuses us of being corrupt. Everything short of being a child molester he’s accused us of being.”

Wright said he had no ill will toward Guinasso and was only concerned about his legitimacy as a candidate.

“There’s a lot of questions that need to be answered here,” he said. “He’s applying for a job with an incumbent that didn’t run and it’s wide open. So here’s a carpetbagger mentality that he’s going to try and come over and take this position from an unopposed seat except the lady running against him.”

However, Guinasso included in his defense an exhibit containing an April 6 email from Wright to several people informing them of his residency challenge.

“One never knows how this will play out, but if Jason tries to lie his way out he will compound the problems he already has, but he is so arrogant, and rather stupid I actually see him fighting like dog (sic) to circumvent the evidence,” Wright states in the email. “This will be covered by every news outlet in Reno and probably Vegas, it is so sad to see someone work so hard to screw those who supported him. But he is a slim ball (sic). Working for a slim ball (sic) organization.”

Guinasso added Wright has worked with his opponent Lisa Krasner in the past, likening the challenge to a smear campaign.

Krasner said she had nothing to do with filing the challenge.

“The district attorney is bringing the case against my opponent because of a challenge to his lack of residency in Assembly District 26,” she said. “I’m sure the judge will do a good job of applying the law to the facts here.”

Residency challenges in Nevada are relatively common. District attorney spokeswoman Michelle Bays said her office receives between three and five candidate challenges every year, with one or two going to a full hearing.

Sometimes those challenges can lead to disqualification. In 2014, a judge ruled against Jesse “Jake” Holder, a Democrat, after Republican Shelly Shelton challenged he didn’t live in Assembly District 10 in Las Vegas. Meghan Smith, a fellow Democrat from Las Vegas, was ruled ineligible the same year in Assembly District 24.

Both Holder’s and Smith’s names remained on the ballot because of time constraints. However, they both lost their elections, Holder by less than one percent.

In 2012, a judge ruled Assemblyman Andrew Martin, D-Las Vegas, did not live in his district. However, his name was not removed from the ballot and he garnered the most votes. The Nevada Constitution gives each chamber in the Legislature the authority to decide whom to seat. The Assembly, which had a Democratic majority, granted Martin a place in the chamber.

Guinasso’s hearing is scheduled for 1:45 p.m. at the Washoe County District Courthouse.

Read the residency challenge below: