Tuesday marks exactly four weeks until Election Day.
The Nevada gubernatorial race between incumbent Republican Joe Lombardo and his Democratic challenger, Attorney General Aaron Ford, is one of the country's hottest races.
The two sides have thrown multiple shots back and forth over the last year.
Now, the biggest point of contention centers around a possible clemency for a man who killed a pregnant woman more than a decade ago.
This Reality Check centers around two ads, “Clemency” and “Outrageous”.
Claim one: Killing of pregnant woman
“A mother and her unborn baby boy gruesomely gunned down by gang member Norman Smith," the narrator said in “Clemency”.
Verdict: True
The ad is run by the Lombardo-supported political action committee, Better Nevada.
Despite the editorial language, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal, in 2015, Norman Smith shot and killed pregnant Tinesha Adams in an Applebee’s parking lot in North Las Vegas.
A letter from the Clark County District Attorney’s Office obtained by our Las Vegas affiliate,KLAS, shows more details.
On the night of the killing on December 13, 2015, Smith was at dinner with the father of Adams’ child, who was out with another woman.
Adams approached them and confronted the father.
The argument escalated to the parking lot.
The defense claimed during the trial that Smith was pepper sprayed and felt threatened before he ultimately shot and killed Adams who was about 20 weeks pregnant.
In October 2018, a jury found Smith guilty of voluntary manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to eight to 20 years.
However, by that time, Smith was already serving a 10- to 39-year sentence for three counts of robbery with a deadly weapon.
Both sets of charges were ruled to run consecutively, meaning he was serving a minimum of 18 years total.
Claim two: Life sentence
“Most Nevadans would call for a life sentence at least, but not Aaron Ford,” the narrator continued.
Verdict: Misleading
The manslaughter with the deadly weapon enhancement charge carried a maximum of 20 years.
In current Nevada law, the charge can only carry a sentence of up to 30 years.
Claim three: Early release
"After serving only eight years, Ford personally asked the pardon board to grant this killer an early release," the narrator said.
Verdict: Misleading, but lots of context is needed.
This one is not black or white.
Ford did sponsor Smith to be heard in front of the Pardons Board.
As Attorney General, he is a member of the board.
According to the AG’s Office, almost a year ago, Smith’s mom asked Ford to put her son’s case before the board for possible sentence modification.
After reviewing a letter from a prosecutor on the case who thought Smith should be paroled for his robbery charge, citing that there were disparities with the other defendants who were charged in the same case, Ford agreed to put it on the agenda.
However, the office says he did not say he was going to vote in favor, but wanted it to be investigated.
The office also claims that Ford was under the impression that the robbery charges were the only ones that were going to be talked about.
According to the Nevada Department of Corrections, Smith was granted time served on his sentence that began in December 2015.
Since he was convicted on the robbery charge first, NDOC says he would’ve been eligible for parole in December 2025, but the addition of the manslaughter charge makes him eligible in 2033.
Both sets of charges were on the Pardons Board agenda.
The Attorney General’s Office also sent us a letter from Smith’s attorney.
It stated that Smith was trying to have his sentences changed to run concurrently, which would’ve granted him an immediate release, or to cut his robbery charge in half, similar to the other defendants convicted in the case, so he would’ve been eligible in December 2028.
When asking the AG’s Office about this, they reiterated that Ford putting it on the agenda was not in support of these requests.
Smith didn’t get put on the Pardons Board agenda until September.
The prosecutor sent a new letter, which was obtained by KLAS, to the Pardon Board.
It lays out the details of the killing, eventually asking the board to: “Ultimately, the State believes this Board should consider these facts and the impact on the victim’s family while making its decision for this matter.”
Ford did not attend the meeting where Smith’s case was heard due to a family emergency, according to the Attorney General’s Office.
In the Nevada Administrative Code, the Governor, who is the chair of the Pardons Board, can remove anyone’s application from the agenda.
The board ultimately denied the sentence modification.
Ford’s campaign has since released a response ad.
Claim four: No pardon
“Ford agreed. No clemency. No pardon,” the narrator claimed in the “Outrageous” ad, defending Ford.
Verdict: True… but since he wasn’t at the meeting, we’ll never know for sure.
According to the AG’s Office, sponsoring an inmate does not show that the board member is supporting the request, but simply asking that the case be investigated.
The office claims Ford would have voted ‘no’, but since Ford wasn’t at the meeting, there is no definitive answer.
We reached out to the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office about what it means to sponsor an inmate to the board.
They said they agree with what the Clark County District Attorney’s Office told KLAS, which included, in part, “in this office's experience, such sponsorship has never been treated as a merely routine or ministerial step. Rather, sponsorship reflects an affirmative determination by a board member that the inmate's application warrants consideration by the board."
Claim five: Voting record
"On the Pardons board, Ford and Lombardo voted the same way almost every time,” the narrator continued.
Verdict: True
Ford’s campaign transcribed all of the Pardons Board meetings from 2023 and say the two voted together more than 90 percent of the time.
The campaign did provide the voting records.
The board meets four times a year.
However, the record was never brought up as a point of contention in the first ad.
We did reach out to get the transcript of the September Pardons Board meeting and have not heard back.
